Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 418: debated on Thursday 24 January 1946

House of Commons

Thursday, January 24, 1946

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

Prayers

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair ]

New Writ

For the Burgh of Glasgow (Cathcart Division), in the room of Francis Beattie, esquire, deceased.—[ Sir Arthur Young. ]

Oral Answers to Questions

Post Office

Postal Rates

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will now make an announcement regarding the reduction in the charges now being made for letters and postcards.

I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to similar Questions asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer) and the hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field (Sir J. Mellor) on 20th December, 1945.

Would the Minister consider making a reduction in letter cards or letters not weighing more that one ounce? At present it is 2½d. for two ounces.

Christmas Season (Loaned Troops)

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what arrangements were made for troops to assist his staff at the G.P.O. in London at Christmas time; and what extra pay they received.

Members of the Forces, rising to a peak number of about 2,600, were loaned to the Post Office during the last Christmas season for the purpose of assisting in the heavy work at the main offices and terminal stations in London for which sufficient suitable civilian adult male labour was not available. No extra payment was made to the men in question, who continued to receive their normal military pay and allowances. I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing my noble Friend's appreciation of the help given by the troops in disposing of the heavy Christmas mails.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these men were detailed to go and were not volunteers; that in some cases they left barracks at 5.30 in the morning and did not get back till 7 o'clock at night; and will he see that these very long hours are not worked again and that extra pay will be given for Service personnel engaged in this work?

Can the hon. Gentleman say if this work done by the soldiers interfered with their Christmas leave in any way?

Telephone Service

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will state the number of would-be telephone subscribers on the waiting list in December 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945, and the numbers for each month in 1945; when it is anticipated that would-be subscribers will not have to wait longer than one month before connection; and what is the present average delay between application and connection.

As the answer to this Question contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Could the hon. Gentleman say if there will be any improvement, and if would-be subscribers will get on the telephone system more quickly?

Yes, I think we have about reached the peak now and things will get better.

Following is the answer:

The numbers of would-be telephone subscribers waiting for telephone service at the dates mentioned were as follows:

End of December

1938

4,123

1939

8,174

1940

13,233

1941

28,266

1942

49,005

1943

134,598

1944

184,274

March

1945

209,179

June

1945

238,405

September

1945

276,517

October

1945

288,697

November

1945

299,482

December

1945

299,843

Monthly figures before September, 1945, are not available, and quarterly figures have therefore been given.

The connection of all new subscribers within a month of their application depends on the availability of plant and labour. The Post Office is to a considerable extent drawing on the same labour resources as are required for the housing programme, particularly in constructing or extending telephone exchange buildings and in laying underground plant, ducts for telephone cables, in the streets. It is not yet possible to say when the heavy arrears of such work which have accumulated during the war can be overtaken, particularly in view of the present exceptionally large demands for telephone service. Where plant is available, the average delay between application and connection, due to the arrears of work to be done, is at present estimated to be between six and eight weeks.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many trunk telephone circuits are now under the control of the Post Office and the Service authorities, respectively; and how many additional circuits will be taken over from the Services by the Post Office in the next three months.

As to the first part of the Question, the figures are 12,300 and 6,360 respectively. As to the second part, it is expected that the figure will be about 600.

Will the hon. Gentleman agree that this is very unsatisfactory? In fact the whole position of the telephone service is unsatisfactory, and will he do his utmost to get additional personnel released from the Forces?

We are getting them and the Services are co-operating with us. The difficulty about which my Noble Friend is thinking is not connected so much with the circuits as with the shortage of labour which now exists.

Is it not about time that members of the Post Office engineering staff, lent to military authorities for "D" day operations abroad and who are still overseas, were brought back and their duties taken over by the Royal Engineers?

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether, in view of the labour involved in removing telephone equipment and re-installing It every time that a house changes hands, he will take steps to ensure that telephone equipment is not removed in such circumstances until all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that the incoming occupier will not require to use it.

The general practice is as desired by the hon. and gallant Member. In localities, however, where there are earlier applicants waiting for service, it is only fair that their claims should be considered, and in some instances they are given the telephone instead of the newcomer.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the practice to which he has referred is honoured more in the breach than in the observance? Is it not very unbusinesslike to go and take out a telephone installation without finding out whether it is wanted by the new occupant of the house? Does it not accentuate the state of affairs which is mentioned in Question No. 3—unnecessary delays.

In these times we have to consider the claims of the various applicants for telephone services, and if a telephone is needed by someone in the same area occasionally we have to take it from a house rather than leave it for an incoming tenant.

Will the hon. Gentleman look into this a little further, and see whether it is not shortage of in struments which is the cause?

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will state the result of his inquiries into the telephone position in the Island of Scarp, Outer Hebrides.

This matter is being considered as part of a general review of the telecommunications system in the more remote Scottish Islands, and examination of the technical problems involved has not yet been completed.

May I take it that it is very likely that Scarp Island will be adequately covered for telephone services, among other places?

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will state the rate at which telephones are now being supplied and the number of applications still to be satisfied.

The present rate is about 47,000 a month, and nearly 300,000 applications are on hand.

Deliveries (Rural Areas)

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will arrange for all letters and parcels to be delivered in rural areas by motor-van as soon as the necessary vehicles are available, in order to make possible speedier deliveries.

It is my Department's policy to improve rural services by the use of motors whenever their use can be justified economically. Development has been interrupted by the war, but my Noble Friend intends to press on with it as speedily as conditions permit.

Parcels

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will consider increasing the weight of parcels accepted for parcel post to 28 pounds, in order to assist those living in rural areas and to encourage the mail order business.

lam sorry that for practical reasons it would not be feasible to increase the limit of weight of parcels in the inland post to 28 lb.

Would it not be possible to increase the weight at any rate above the present amount in view of the inconvenience caused in rural areas by the present limitation?

It would mean negotiations with the railway companies, and I also understand it would mean statutory consideration as well.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many countries where there are practical difficulties parcels of this weight are carried to the great convenience of the public?

Revenue

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the value of G.P.O. business transacted in 1938, together with the sum transferred to the Exchequer in the same year; and the corresponding figures for 1943 and 1944.

The revenue derived from Post Office services, including both cash receipts and the value of services to other Departments not paid for in cash, and the amounts of revenue transferred to the Exchequer for each of the years named, are as follows:

Gross Revenue

Revenue paid to Exchequer

£

£

1938

90,626,000

88,450,000

1943

168,836,000

115,750,000

1944

178,813,000

121,420,000

Could the hon. Gentleman use these sums to keep the wireless licence at its present figure?

Is it not a fact that this increased revenue is not justified by the service given at the present moment? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that you have to post letters in this House before a quarter past two if they are to be delivered the next day in the North-Western rural areas of this country?

The services given at the present are not, I admit, up to the standard we want, but that is due to the shortage of labour and wartime conditions that still persist in the Post Office.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of the present charges are deterrent charges deliberately imposed in order to cut down the use of postal and telephone services during the war?

Broadcast Receiving Licences (Scotland)

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will state the total revenue received from wire less licence holders in Scotland in 1945; and the proportion thereof allocated to the B.B.C.

The total revenue from the issue of broadcast receiving licences in Scotland during 1945 was £496,000. Since 1940 the B.B.C. has been financed by grants-in-aid, the amounts of which have substantially exceeded the sums received from the sale of licences; and there has therefore been no question of an allocation to the B.B.C. of any part of licence revenue.

Could my hon. Friend give the House separate figures for the County of Argyll in view of the weekly political broadcast?

Gratuities (Payment)

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what is the delay between the application for, and the payment of, gratuities; how many cases still remain to be dealt with by his Department; and if he will take steps to speed up these payments.

Where an application for gratuity is necessary, that application has to be made to the Service Department concerned or to the local authority in the case of Civil Defence personnel. When the amount has been assessed the Department concerned asks the Post Office Savings Department to issue a Savings Bank book. The Savings Department aims at despatching the book to the recipient within a week of the receipt of the notification, and except for a short time at the end of December and the beginning of January, this aim has been achieved. On the 21st January, the Savings Department had on hand about 18,000 notifications. The books in these cases have either already been issued or will be issued this week.

Postal Service (Europe)

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will state the countries in Europe to which letters may still not be sent from this country; and how soon postal services will be opened with them.

Germany is now the only country in Europe to which there is no postal service from this country. The Allied Control Council in Germany still has the general question of restoring Germany's international postal services under discussion, and while my Department is ready to assist in any way possible, I cannot forecast what services it will be decided to afford or their probable dates of introduction.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is able to bring any influence to bear on the Allied Control Council, because how does he expect the civilising influence of out people to be felt in Germany unless there are frequent communications between the two peoples?

National Insurance

Old Age Pensioners, Channel Islands

asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will arrange for old age pensioners resident in the Channel Islands to be eligible for supplementary pensions.

No, Sir. Section 9 (5) of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, does not permit supplementary pensions to be paid to persons outside Great Britain.

In view of the hardship caused by this lack of provision, will not my right hon. Friend consider whether steps can be taken to alter it, since these people need supplementary old age pensions?

I am afraid that supplementation is a matter for the authorities in the Channel Islands.

Family Allowances

asked the Minister of National Insurance whether it is his intention to establish an office in Wales for the administration of the Children's Allowances Act with the same measure of autonomy as is already provided for the Health and Pensions Schemes.

As I stated in reply to questions by the hon. Members for Cardiff Central (Mr. G. Thomas) and Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) on ist November last, the Ministry's Claims and Records Office for the purposes of the Family Allowances Act will be situated in Newcastle, but specific difficulties arising on claims to family allowances in Wales will be dealt with by the Central Welsh Office at Cardiff and local offices in the Principality, and oral hearings in Welsh cases referred to a referee on appeal will normally be conducted in Wales.

Fishermen

asked the Minister of National Insurance whether all fishermen, including inshore fishermen and lobster fishermen, are as fully provided for in the proposed national insurance scheme as industrial workers; and whether he will give the same assurance regarding crofters and squatters.

I would ask my hon. Friend to await publication of the National Insurance Bill which will be available later today.

Unemployment Pay (Building Workers)

asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will state the number of building trade operatives in Glasgow who received unemployment benefit during the month of December.

I am informed that on 10th December, 1945, there were 305 claimants for benefit or applicants for unemployment allowances, classified as belonging to the building industry on the register of the employment exchanges in Glasgow.

Can my right hon. Friend give any reason why building trade operatives should be idle in Glasgow, where there is such dire need for additional houses?

Would the right hon. Gentleman convey it to the Minister of Labour?

Questions

Police Force (Strength)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of civilian police still in the Services and when it is anticipated they will all have returned; the number of extra police needed for peacetime requirements; the present strength and the number required to bring the force to fulltime strength; and the number of new recruits who will be trained by April, 1946, April, 1947, and April, 1948, respectively.

As the answer involves a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great spread of crime, holdup and robbery as a result of the shortage of police, and will he take energetic steps at least to remedy the deficiency?

I am taking the most energetic steps possible to recruit the police force, but I do not think that more recruitment would prevent some of the crimes to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has alluded.

Following is the answer:

On 1st January, 1946, there were about 5,750 policemen still in the Armed Forces. With the exception of men who are retained on grounds of military necessity or who are not prepared to accept Class B release, these should have returned by March next. The pre-war establishment of the police forces in England and Wales was 64,500, but I cannot yet say to what extent the establishment will need to be increased to meet post-war conditions. The present strength is 53,950 and 10,550 men are therefore required to bring the service to full strength, including those due to return from the Armed Forces. The numbers of new recruits trained by April, 1946, April, 1947 and April, 1948, are estimated at 1,000, 11,000 and 15,000 respectively.

Borstal System

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention ha,s been called to the statement made by Mr. Harold McKenna, Chairman of the Berkshire Quarter Sessions, when dealing with two Wellington College boys found guilty on three charges of house-breaking and larceny; that the Borstal Commissioners had considered the case and did not want the boys at Borstal; and if the Borstal Commissioners have discretion as to which offenders they will accept and which refuse.

The Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, authorises a court to pass a sentence of Borstal detention in lieu of other penalties if it appears that by reason of a young offender's criminal habits or tendencies a course of instruction and discipline in a Borstal institution would be most conducive to his reformation and to the repression of crime. It is for the court to decide whether Borstal training is to be preferred to other methods of dealing with an offender, but the court is required by the Act of 1908, before passing a Borstal sentence, to consider any report or representations made to it on behalf of the Prison Commissioners as to the suitability of the case for training in a Borstal institution. Such information as was available to the prison authorities about the history and circumstances of these two youths did not suggest that they were suitable cases for such training, and their report to the court was to the effect that Borstal training was not recommended.

May I take it, from what my right hon. Friend says, that it still would have been competent for this magistrate, had he wished to do so, to send these boys to Borstal?

It would have been competent for the court—which was a court of quarter sessions with a chairman, and other justices sitting with him, who are supposed to participate in considering the sentence—to decide, in the light of all the circumstances and evidence before them, that the two boys should go to Borstal.

In view of the inferential criticism of the court by the hon. Gentleman, is it not the fact that the court was merely following the usual practice, namely, of having regard to the report of the Prison Commissioners?

They undoubtedly had regard to it, but I have known cases where the court has disregarded the recommendation of the Prison Commissioners one way or the other.

May I ask the Minister if it is not the case that there is very gross discrimination as between college boys and corner boys, and will he not see that these boys get full consideration?

On my experience at quarter sessions it is very unusual to send youths on a first conviction to Borstal, though there are exceptional cases where that is necessary. I am quite convinced that in this case, as in most others, no class discrimination took place.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any statement to make regarding the recent series of attempted escapes of Borstal boys from Dartmoor; and whether he has reconsidered his decision as to the suitability of the prison as a Borstal establishment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any statement to make about the continued use of Dartmoor as a Borstal institution in view of the repeated escapes that have been made from it in recent weeks.

Since the Borstal Institution at Dartmoor was opened on 15th November last, there have been 12 escapes, nine of them from outside working parties. All the absconders were recaptured. There is always a risk of escape from Borstal training, since it is an essential part of the training that work is carried on in conditions involving a measure of trust which could not be extended to ordinary prisoners. Successful escape from Dartmoor is in fact less easy than from other Borstal institutions, because of its situation. I do not think that these escapes give any ground for reconsidering my decision that Dartmoor must be used as a temporary Borstal institution pending the provision of better alternative accommodation.

Could the Home Secretary say how long he intends to continue Dartmoor as a Borstal institution?

As I have previously assured the House, until such time as I can provide suitable alternative accommodation. I have already made some progress in that direction, and I would ask right hon. Members and hon. Members, when I ask for a particular place to be used as a Borstal institution and it happens to be in their constituency, to realise that these places have to be somewhere.

In view of the answer my right hon. Friend gave to a previous Question, does he think that some of these boys might be accommodated in Wellington College?

Firearms (Possession)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take legislative steps to ensure that the possession of lethal weapons by any person without an official permit is punishable as a criminal offence with heavy penalties.

Under the Firearms Act, 1937, it is an offence, punishable on summary conviction by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding £50 or both imprisonment and fine, to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition without a firearm certificate. In the case of an automatic weapon, or where a person has in his possession a firearm or ammunition with intent to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, it is possible to impose much heavier penalties. I do not think that any further legislation on this point is necessary.

Cremation

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider introducing, in the near future, amendments to the Cremation Act, 1902, and subsequent Regulations, to remove the present legal discriminations hampering the development of the practice of cremation.

This question, and other questions connected with cremation, are matters which I hope to take up as soon as I have an opportunity.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the law governing cremation dates back to the days when a cremationist was regarded either as a crank or as a criminal, and that, in particular, municipalities are at a disadvantage compared with private individuals in establishing crematoriums? Will he, as soon as an opportunity arises, see that the Act governing this important subject is brought up to date?

There are many Acts which require to be brought up to date. I cannot regard this as among the most urgent.

Fascist Activities

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he has now considered what special powers he may require to deal with the revival of Fascist activity in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now consider introducing legislation to make racial propaganda a criminal offence.

His Majesty's Government are giving their closest attention to the question of the best method of dealing with Fascist activities, but I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.

Among other considerations, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the very bad propaganda repercussions in liberated and ex-enemy countries when they hear, for instance, that Fascist candidates are allowed to stand at by-elections in this country?

I think that this is a question which wants examining from both points of view, and I am exceedingly anxious that nothing should be done to convince people that this country has become either timorous or intolerant.

Might I ask if the Home Secretary would consider widening the ambit of his inquiries, so as to embrace the activities of other bodies which endeavour to impose a foreign totalitarian regime?

As I explained to the House on the last occasion, I have to be very careful that I do not aim at the crow and hit the pigeon.

Would it not be possible to deal with anti-Semitic activities without being described as intolerant?

Anti-Semitic activities of a certain kind are already an offence. I am considering how far it is possible to make some amendment of the law which would rather widen the powers that I have at present, but there again the matter is exceedingly difficult. There are a large number of people of Semitic descent who would object to a law which was specifically aimed at their protection and that of no one else.

Arising out of the previous reply, can the Home Secretary say that he is satisfied that his security authorities are properly equipped to investigate Fascist activities? They have not always been so in the past. There has been undue attention paid to democratically-minded citizens who may have had tendencies to the Left, and my right hon. Friend's Department has not always been completely unbiassed.

I can only deal with the situation as I find it today, and I do not think that such criticism as has been uttered by the hon. and gallant Member is applicable to the Force today.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the petition, forwarded to him by the hon. Member for West Fife, signed by many members of 322 M.U., S.E.A.A.F., expressing their indignation at the re-emergence of Fascist activities in this country, and calling for immediate action; and what steps he is taking, or proposes to take, to meet the demands made in this petition.

I have received the petition and entirely sympathise with the petitioners in their loathing of the Fascist creed. I have already informed the House that His Majesty's Government are considering what is the best method of preventing a turbulent minority from endangering our liberties, and if the Government come to the conclusion that some strengthening of the existing provisions of our law is required the necessary legislation will be introduced.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the outstanding characteristic of Fascism, with which a certain Noble Gentleman seems to have deep sympathy, is organised and brutal gangsterism? Is he further aware, through terrible experience, that the campaign of anti-Semitism is an incitement to murder?

National Fire Service

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now any further information to give the House about the release of men from the N.F.S.

As I explained in answer to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) and Spennymoor (Mr. Murray) on 8th November, I desire as soon as possible to relax the restrictions on leaving the National Fire Service. The recruiting plans to which I referred have not, however, progressed to a point which would enable me to add to the statement which I made on that occasion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether steps have now been taken to expedite the payment of gratuities and release credits to ex-members of the N.F.S.

Visits to Britain (Facilities)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how soon he expects to be able to grant permission for visits to this country of a private nature from abroad; and whether he will give special consideration to relatives living abroad of persons living in this country.

I am anxious that restrictions on visits for private purposes shall be progressively released as soon as circumstances permit, but, in view both of the very large numbers of people who want to come to this country at the present time, and of the shortage of accommodation and of supplies of various kinds, I regret that it is not at present possible to allow unlimited facilities for such visits.

Police Inquiry, N.W. London

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what purpose the rooms of Adolfo Caltabiano, of Nassington Road, N.W.3, were lately raided by the police.

If there was no raid, there must have been a burglary. Will the Home Secretary undertake an inquiry into this case to ensure that both in the case of the alleged raid and the burglary there has been no political victimisation?

No, I have made inquiries; the police called at this gentleman's address in October, 1945, to make inquiries about a ferocious dog. A summons was issued, and the matter would have come before the court, but, unfortunately, the gentleman was certified insane.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the landlady, who has certainly not been certified as insane, alleges that some political literature was taken away, and that this gentleman, who has now been carried off to some mental home, is in fact a highly respectable person who advocates a highly respectable creed of Anarchism? Will the Home Secretary make further inquiries to ensure that his Department does carry out the principles of tolerance to which he has paid tribute?

I have made the most careful inquiries from the moment that my hon. Friend's Question appeared on the Paper. I am satisfied that the answer I gave is correct. I regret to say that a great many very respectable people are in fact from time to time certified insane.

On a point of Order. This concerns a very important matter. This is a forced entry into a private house which the Secretary of State denies.

This is not a matter which can be dealt with by question and answer; it can be debated on the Adjournment.

On a point of Order. I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

I think the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) used the word "outrageous." I must direct him to withdraw that at once.

Mr. Speaker, I never called anything you said "outrageous"; I called the Secretary of State's answer "outrageous."

Street Obstruction (Newspaper Vendors)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions are given to the police about preventing obstruction by newspaper sellers outside the gates of Hyde Park at Marble Arch; and whether he will review these instructions to ensure that they do not involve an interference with political liberties.

It is the duty of the police—and the police are instructed accordingly—to see that there is no obstruction of free passage on the footway or in the road, and if street sellers cause obstruction at this congested place, the police must deal with them irrespective of what they are selling. There are no special instructions relating to newspaper vendors, and I am satisfied that no interference with political liberty is involved.

Will the Home Secretary take into account the fact that persons who sell newspapers outside Hyde Park at Marble Arch are generally persons who cannot sell their newspapers through the ordinary facilities? Will he also bearin mind that the people who sell newspapers outside Hyde Park, like people who make speeches inside, contribute a very agreeable amenity to this capital city. Will he, therefore, stop the police from preventing them?

I agree with the description my hon. Friend has given of this form of activity, but if the highway is obstructed it is the duty of the police to take the necessary action.

Will my right hon. Friend undertake to pay a visit himself to Hyde Park at Marble Arch one Sunday, and he will see for himself that there is no real obstruction to the passage of people on the pavement?

I do go there from time to time, and I will pay particular attention to this matter the next time I am there.

Will the Home Secretary also take note of the fact that as newspapers and pamphlets are not allowed to be sold inside the park, they are necessarily sold in a very limited area, and because of that congestion is alleged? I say it does not take place and that the sellers are very orderly.

If there is no obstruction there can be no ground for action, and there would be no conviction if action were taken.

When the Home Secretary reports to the House that he has made inquiries into complaints of this kind, does he mean that he has consulted the police or that he has consulted the parties making the complaint as well? [An HON. MEMBER: "Or Mr. Laski?"]

I make inquiries of the police and such other persons as appear to me to be capable of giving me information or advice.

Boy's Sentence (Newton-Le-Willows)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the sentence of three months' imprisonment imposed on a boy of 14 years of age by the Newton-le-Willows magistrates' court; and if he will take immediate steps to have this boy removed from the unsuitable environment of an ordinary prison to some more suitable institution.

I have much information as to this boy's previous history and am giving careful consideration to the question of what further action can most suitably be taken in the best interests of the boy.

Will the Home Secretary consider the question of this boy receiving attention at a child guidance clinic, having regard to his previous history, of which my right hon. Friend is aware?

This boy has, I imagine, been the subject of more consideration than any other boy who has ever been brought within the purview of the Home Office. He has confounded all the experts, and all efforts to help and control him have, up to the present, failed. It is one of the most exceptional cases, if not the most exceptional case, that has ever been brought before my Department, and it is causing me not merely concern, but anxiety.

Allied Seamen's Repatriation

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the reasons for the recent enforced repatriation of over 100 Greeks from Cardiff; and whether this action was part of a general policy to be enforced over the whole of the country.

Owing to the reduction in the number of Greek ships plying to the United Kingdom, a large number of Greek seamen who are surplus to the needs of the Greek Merchant Navy Pool have been required to leave in accordance with the conditions on which they were allowed to come here. The general understanding regarding all Allied seamen who have been temporarily based on the United Kingdom owing to the war, has always been that they would return to their own countries when their services as seamen were no longer required here and repatriation became possible: and the majority have already gone.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of these repatriated Greeks have given very gallant service during the war, having suffered through being torpedoed or mined whilst at sea, and that it is widely believed in the City of Cardiff that their repatriation, standing alone in the country, is linked up with the recent hunger strike which took place at our city docks?

No, Sir, these are not the only alien seamen who are being repatriated. Alien seamen of other nationalities, for whom there is no longer employment, are being repatriated, and there is no discrimination at all. Neither was the question of a sit-down strike or anything else brought to my notice when I signed the necessary orders.

In view of the instances of people who for one reason or other are really afraid to go back to their countries of origin, would the Home Secretary consider making a general statement on the position of such people in this country?

Whenever representation is made to me that a person who might be deported would be the subject of political or religious persecution in the land to which it is proposed to send him back, I am most careful not to sign an order until I am satisfied that there is no ground for the misgiving. If there is the slightest ground for the misgiving, I hold my hand.

Pensions and Grants

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will give an indication as to when assessment tribunals will be set up.

I am keeping this matter under careful review but I am afraid I am not yet in a position to say when it will be possible to appoint a day for the operation of Section 5 of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943, particularly in view of the priority which must be given to the more important issues involved in entitlement appeals.

Is not the Minister aware that hardship is being caused in many cases, by the absence of these tribunals?

asked the Minister of Pensions if an estimate was made during the war just ended of the probable number of casualties and approximate cost of pensions; to what extent the estimate of casualties was higher than, the actual number; and whether the improvements in pensions, recently announced, absorb the whole of the resultant saving in expenditure.

During the recent war no reliable estimate could be made of the probable cost of war pensions, and the second and third parts of the question do not therefore arise.

asked the Minister of Pensions if, in view of the increases recently announced in disability pensions payable to other ranks, he will now state what increases are to be made in ex-officers' disability pensions.

The increases recently announced in disability, pensions payable to other ranks still leave the cor- responding rates payable to disabled officers substantially higher, and no increases in the latter rates are contemplated. Officers will, however, benefit by the new provisions for a special hardship allowance and for allowances for a wife and family explained in Parts III and VI respectively of Command 6714.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will cause great concern among ex-officers, because the circumstances that justified the increase in other rank pensions, which I welcomed, also justify an increase in their case? Will the Minister reconsider this matter?

asked the Minister of Pensions, if he is aware of the delay in dealing with applications for war pensions and that ex-Servicemen's organisations such as the British Legion are having to use their own funds to assist applicants who are awaiting decisions regarding war pensions; and if he will take steps to remedy this matter.

In the large majority of claims made at the time of invaliding or in respect of death in service a decision is notified before service pay ceases. There are cases where further enquiries have to be made but these are dealt with as quickly as possible. My information does not lead me to think that the position as set out by the hon. and gallant Member is of common occurrence.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is taking up to three weeks to receive acknowledgment of the application and 10 weeks to receive the decision?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a case to which I drew the attention of his Department on two occasions has been hanging fire for a period of 10 months now, and will he give that case urgent attention if again I bring it to his notice?

If the hon. Member will let me know what case it is, I will certainly look into it.

asked the Minister of Pensions why the regional office at Leeds has been moved from the centre of the city to Lawnswood; and if he is aware that the long tram-car journey followed by a walk at Lawnswood is causing inconvenience to disabled ex-Servicemen from all parts of Yorkshire who visit the office daily.

The regional office in Leeds was moved because the premises at York Place, about which many complaints had been received, had become inadequate for the Ministry's requirements. A lengthy search revealed no premises as suitable as those at Lawnswood, and satisfaction has been expressed with the change. I have, however, received some complaints regarding the location of the office and I am looking into the question whether the transport arrangements can be improved. I will write to my hon. Friend when my inquiries are complete.

Whilst thanking the Minister for that answer, and whilst appreciating the difficulties, may I ask if it would not have been possible to come to an arrangement with some other Ministry for the removal of that Ministry to Lawnswood, preferably the Ministry of Fuel and Power, most of whose visitors possess motor vehicles, rather than the Ministry of Pensions, most of whose visitors are disabled people?

I think our people have looked into all the possibilities of getting offices in Leeds itself, or within a short distance of the station, but we just could not do it.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he will reconsider the exclusion of 1914–1918 disabled men from the special allowances to be granted to 1939–1945 pensioners and to injured workmen under the Industrial Injuries Bill, who are unable to resume former or other occupations of equivalent standard.

The allowance in question will be granted to disabled men who are permanently incapable of resuming their former occupation or of following or being trained for one of equivalent standard. It would, in general, be impracticable to apply these criteria to cases where the disability was incurred up to 30 years ago. There was, moreover, in operation in respect of the war of 1914–18 an alternative pension scheme designed to provide special compensation in cases of loss of earning capacity.

King's Badge

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider extending the issue of the King's Badge, now confined to pensioners only, to all ex-Service men and women, to be worn as an emblem of service in the armed forces of the Crown during the 1939–46 war.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there are so many ex-Servicemen now who have nothing to show for their service that there is a black market in an artificial badge, and could not this be killed and everybody given satisfaction by providing some emblem of service to those who have been in the Services?

No, I do not agree with the hon. Member. There are ribbons that can be worn but there is the old saying, "Where everybody is somebody then no one is anybody." If you give everybody a ribbon then they will be of no value.

Foreign Secretary (Title)

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the establishment of U.N.O., he will consider changing the title of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to that of Secretary of State for International Relations.

South African Protectorates

asked the Prime Minister, if he is aware of the influential public demand in the Union of South Africa for the transfer to the Union Government of the protectorates of Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland; what representations he has received in this connection; and if, in view of the colour discrimination in force under the Union Government, he will give an assurance that no such transfer is contemplated by His Majesty's Government.

This matter has been discussed on several occasions in the past, but no recent representations have been received on the subject from His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa. As already explained on 23rd August last, the position of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom remains governed by the pledges set out in the Parliamentary Paper, Command 4948.

Does that answer imply that there is an assurance such as is asked for in the latter part of my original Question?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the assurance that was given. He will find that completely satisfactory.

Armed Forces (Strength)

asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government are, or have been, in consultation with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions, other than Eire, regarding the interim and long term military needs and commitments of this country and Empire; and whether any decision has yet been reached regarding the permanent strength of the R.N., Army and R.A.F.

As regards the first part of the Question, I can give the hon. and gallant Member the assurance he desires. It is the established policy of His Majesty's Government to consult Dominion Governments on all major issues of defence policy. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative, but the problem is under active consideration.

Newsprint Supplies

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the need for enlisting the support of the people in every country, he will give immediate instructions for the release of newsprint and labour to enable British newspapers to report adequately the discussions of the U.N.O. without curtailing other essential news and views.

While I appreciate the great importance of adequately reporting the matters now under discussion, I regret that I cannot at present agree to an increase in the size of newspapers. The general position will, however, be reviewed as soon as currency and supply considerations permit.

Are those the only reasons which prevent the necessary release of labour and newsprint for the extension of the papers?

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that if more newsprint and labour is made available there is no guarantee that it will be used for the purposes set out in this Question?

Owing to the great importance of this question I am going to raise it on the Adjournment.

Air Speed Record (Recognition)

asked the Prime Minister if he will consider recognising the outstanding contribution to British aviation by Group-Captain Wilson and Mr. Greenwood in beating the world's air speed record.

Recommendations, for awards for speed records are dealt with in relation to the half-yearly lists, and these names will be considered accordingly.

Germany

Ruhr Coalmines (Output)

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the output during the month of November, 1945, per wage earner in the Ruhr coalmines.

Has any incentive been provided for the Ruhr coalminers to increase their output?

The incentive that has been provided is higher rations, de-Nazification on a progressive scale, and the result is shown in the fact that from July the output per man-shift has gone up progressively month by month until in December it was 1.5 tons.

Nazi Party Members

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many persons in the British zone have been removed from administrative posts and other positions of authority under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration directing that all members of the Nazi Party shall be excluded from office; and what steps are being taken to ensure that all these people, deprived of any occupation, are not engaged in undermining the authority of the Allied Control Commission.

The Potsdam agreement provides for the exclusion from office of members of the Nazi Party who played more than a nominal part in Nazi activities. Accordingly, some 72,000 former Nazis in the British Zone had been removed from office by December 31st last. A further 41,486 have been excluded from holding office. The more dangerous of the former category are held under arrest. The activities of the remainder are circumscribed in various ways. They are subject to direction in regard to employment. They cannot return to positions of responsibility. Restrictions on change of residence are rigorously applied to them. They are subject to the control and supervision of our intelligence service.

Can the hon. Member say whether when the people are in idleness some work is given to them, because if they are idle they are more likely to be mischievous than if they are employed?

Those who are in prison and awaiting trial, can be directed to manual labour under which they can be closely supervised.

Postal Facilities

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements he has now made for postal communication between persons in this country and their relatives or friends in Germany who qualify under the scheme in force for entry into the United Kingdom.

Special arrangements are being made to enable these persons to communicate with the relative through official channels. An announcement, giving full particulars of the procedure, will be made shortly.

Can the Minister say how soon? Is he not aware that persons in this country have to adopt most undesirable means for communicating with the people? Would he say whether the new arrangements would come in within the next few days?

I hope the final proposals for instituting this procedure will be completed within a few days.

Poland (Edinburgh Hospital Unit)

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is aware that the Paderewski Memorial Hospital in Edinburgh has organised and held in readiness for over six months a complete mobile hospital unit of 400 beds and 25 vehicles for the British-occupied zone in Germany to deal with Polish displaced persons and former prisoners of war; that 21st Army Group and U.N.R.R.A. approved and desired to use this unit; and why permission to proceed to Germany is withheld.

Permission for the despatch of this hospital unit has not been withheld. Unfortunately, the organisers of the unit were unable to find the Polish staff necessary for its operation. The equipment is now being assembled by U.N.R.R.A. for despatch and use in Poland.

Employment

Domestic Workers (Hospitals)

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that at Wrexham recently, 30 women now on unemployment pay refused to take work as domestic helps at a nearby T.B. sanatorium; and whether, in view of the need of this help, he has any proposals to make to solve this problem.

I am aware of the position. I understand from my right hon. Friend, the Minister of National Insurance, that in the cases referred to, unemployment benefit was disallowed on the ground of refusal of suitable employment wherever the statutory authorities found that the work was suitable in the circumstances of the particular woman concerned and that there was no good cause for the refusal. Having regard to the relaxations that have recently been made in the labour controls, particularly those affecting women, it is no longer possible to direct women to fill domestic vacancies in hospitals. I am hopeful, however, that as the result of acceptance by hospital employing authorities, of the New Code of Conditions relating to hospital domestic workers, and bearing in mind that wage rates for these workers are now under discussion by the recently appointed National Joint Council, unemployed women in the Wrexham and other areas will show increasing willingness both to enter and to remain in this important and socially necessary field of employment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present time there is no sign of any increase in women at all, and does he contemplate with equanimity the danger that these rural sanatoria for tuberculosis will have to close down in the very areas where they are most needed?

The difficulty of staff in these institutions is constantly before us, and the institutions themselves might help by making, the work attractive. We are not going to force women or any other persons into work that is not congenial to them.

Agriculture

asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking, in view of the recent decision of the Agricultural Wages Board, to maintain adequate manpower in the Agricultural industry.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, I recently met representatives of the two unions on this matter, and I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I would like to make it clear, however, that no special measures to maintain an. adequate labour force in agriculture in addition to those already in operation are made necessary by reason of the nature of the recommendation of the Agricultural Wages Board.

Could my right hon. Friend say whether he will be intervening directly with the Agricultural Wages Board, and, if he does so, will he bear in mind that agricultural workers are highly skilled workers and that their wages should not always be the lowest rung of the wages ladder?

I think it would be improper for me to comment upon the merits of an actual case at the moment, but I can assure my hon. Friend that, whilst there is difficulty and the Government are aware that there is some objection, the services of the Ministry have been offered to the parties and we are taking further opinion.

Will the right hon. Gentleman remember the importance of rural housing in this matter?

Vocational Training Schemes

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that no facilities are available for the training of a large number of men in the trades and professions they have selected under the vocational scheme; and what steps he is taking to improve this unsatisfactory position.

The training facilities are being extended as rapidly as the availability of accommodation and equipment permits. During the last few weeks, 10 new centres for training in building trades have been opened and others will be opened in the course of the next few weeks. In a number of trades, consultation with the industries concerned has shown it to be necessary to limit the training facilities provided to correspond with the prospects of employment opportunities after training.

Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the personnel of the services are informed of what courses are available for them when they are demobilised, thereby preventing much disappointment and wasting of the applicant's time?

It is not so much a question of their being available ultimately, but I think the House will recognise that there is a difficulty in removing Government stores and things of that kind. We are quite satisfied that, in a few weeks, we shall have facilities for practically everybody on our waiting list.

Booklets (Released Personnel)

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange for all employment exchanges to have a supply of "Careers for Men and Women" booklets available for ex-Servicemen and women on demand.

These booklets have already been made available in large quantities for distribution to men and women whilst still in the Services. Nevertheless, the booklets have, from the first, also been available at all local offices of the Ministry of Labour and at resettlement advice offices to men and women who call for advice on careers.

Questions

Demobilisation (Conscientious Objectors)

asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the fact that the full period of service of conscientious objectors is to count towards their release, he will now reconsider the position of former members of the War Reserve Police, who were later transferred to the Armed Forces, but whose service in the police force has not been allowed to count towards demobilisation.

No, Sir. The release of a man from the condition of his registration as a conscientious objector, and the release of a man from the Forces, are two entirely different matters. Time spent in civilian employment, whether as a conscientious objector or not, before enlistment in the Forces, does not count towards release from the Forces.

While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I inform him that I regard the position as unsatisfactory, and I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment?

Military Service (Youths)

asked the Minister of Labour for how long youths of 18, who are now being called up for the Forces, will have to serve.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 6th December, to the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), of which I am sending him a copy, and to which I am not at present able to add.

Is the Minister aware that that answer did nothing to relieve the anxiety felt by youths and their parents on the question of their future careers, and could he not make a statement about the maximum period for which they are likely to be required? If I put a Question down next week, will he give me an answer on that point?

I do not like to suggest a time limit, but the matter is under consideration and we are anxious to get it straightened up.

Does the Minister recognise that this matter is becoming extremely urgent, in view of the fact that commanding officers of training units are now telling the men that they are in for two or three years for certain? That may not be the policy of the Government, but will the Minister not let them know quickly?

I do not know what the colonel told his men, and I am not sure if it is quite the same as my hon. Friend has told us, but I cannot add anything more at the moment.

Shooting Incident, Bombay

( by Private Notice ) asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if his attention has been drawn to the shooting incident in Bombay this week and if he has any statement to make on same; and what steps he is taking in view of the grave concern of many people in this country at the many incidents of the kind which have occurred recently.

I am awaiting an official report on the circumstances reported in the Press in which the police in Bombay were compelled to resort to firing in order to. dispel crowds following celebrations of the birthday of Subhas Chandra Bose. I am not aware that there have been recently many such unfortunate shooting incidents as suggested by my hon. Friend. I presume he is referring to the two cases which occurred last November at Madura and Calcutta and of which I gave particulars to the House on 3rd December. The circumstances of the present case will, of course, be the subject of an official inquiry and until the report of this inquiry is received I cannot say anything further, except to express regret at the loss of life.

May I ask the Under-Secretary if, on receipt of information relative to the incidents at Bombay, he will make a statement to the House in regard to them?

Business of the House

May I ask the Leader of the House if he will make a statement on the Business for next week.

The Business for next week will be as follows:

Monday, 28th January—Report and Third Reading of the Water (Scotland) Bill.

Tuesday and Wednesday, 29th and 30th January—Second Reading of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Thursday, 31st January—Second Reading of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Bill.

Friday, 1st February—Second Reading of the Education Bill and Committee stages of the necessary Money Resolution; and, if there is time, further progress will be made with the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Bill.

I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to meet my request for a third day for the Second Reading of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill, but I take it that his decision is an indication that the Committee stage will be taken on the Floor of the House, for I cannot conceive that a Measure of this importance will be so inadequately discussed as it would be if it were otherwise. May I also ask whether the Leader of the House will consider—I have been in consultation with the Foreign Secretary about this—giving us two days for a Foreign Affairs Debate in the reasonably near future? We do not want to ask-for a time that will be inconvenient to the Government, in view of the situation, but we would like a day as soon as possible.

On the first point, I did consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion about the time for the Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill, but I think two days should be adequate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] When the royalties were nationalised by a Conservative Government, two days were given to the Second Reading, and I should have thought that, if we nationalised the royalties in two days, it is quite legitimate to nationalise the industry in two days, but I will be willing to consider an extension of time on the first day if that will be helpful. On the question where the Committee stage will be taken, I am not in a position to commit myself at this moment. With respect to a Foreign Affairs Debate, I personally have only quite recently heard about the request for a Foreign Affairs Debate. Therefore, it is somewhat new to me, but I will look into it. It is a little quick after the previous Foreign Affairs Debate and it is becoming a little frequent. We have a lot of other things to do, but I will consider it. If we do something in that direction it may be desirable to link up Palestine with it at the same time. I am anxious to discharge that obligation to the House as well.

May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I would not put the royalties and this Bill on the same level, but, even if he does so, will he bear in mind that the Coal Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House?

In view of the statement my right hon. Friend has made, will he bear in mind that, in the opinion of many people, it would be highly un-desirable to link up Palestine with the Foreign Affairs Debate, and also that the Government undertook a very long time ago to give a date for the Palestine Debate? In view of their undertaking a great many questions were held in reserve, and the continued delay in giving a date almost amounts to a breach of faith with the House.

While I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman about the breach of faith, he is on a fair point, and I sympathise with him about it. I am sorry. One of the difficulties is that, owing to the United Nations Organisation Conference, the Foreign Secretary is heavily occupied. It is only right that he should be present during a Debate on Palestine. With regard to the question of mixing them up, I did not mean that exactly; it is a matter of spending the time to the best advantage. I agree it would not be desirable to sail from relations with North America to Palestine or the Union of Soviet Republics. It would be handled in such a way that each would form a distinct part of the Debate.

Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when the Government propose to have a Debate on agricultural policy and if, when that Debate comes, we are to have two days on it, in view of its great importance?

I did say we would be sympathetic about a Debate on agriculture and will see what we can do. I gather it was mutually agreed it could be held over until the former Minister of Agriculture was back which, I think, would be convenient, but I really cannot promise two days. If we are going to sail into two days every week about something or other, we shall not get this great and glorious legislative programme through.

Can the Leader of the House say whether there will be any opportunity to discuss the improvements in war pensions which come into operation in February? Will he bear in mind that many hon. Members wish to have a Debate on that subject?

That may be, but I will see what the general feeling is. I would warn my hon. Friends on this side, as I would hon. Gentlemen on the other, that if we are to have special day after special day on special subjects, then these Bills of great economic change and importance cannot be dealt with, and we shall all be responsible for the delay.

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to grant a two-hours suspension today if necessary?

I am afraid that cannot be done. The Motion is on the Order Paper and we are bound to one hour.

Reverting to the Foreign Affairs Debate and Palestine, will the right hon. Gentleman refresh his memory in regard to the discussion which took place before Christmas when the complication of mingling the two Debates was pointed out and when an assurance was given that a Debate on Palestine would take place? Can he say when it will take place?

I cannot, but what I have said is not inconsistent with keeping it separate. I have to handle the matter in such a way as to economise time as much as possible and to meet the wish of the House. It can be kept separate.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman about Statutory Rules and Orders. Since the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act became law recently, the Orders which can be prayed against in this House have very much increased. Although the Select Committee have not had a meeting since the Act became operative, the matter is so urgent that I would like to bring it to the right hon. Gentleman's notice. The Statutory Rules Committee, under its terms of reference, has to consider under the new legislation at our next meeting on Tuesday about 100 Orders made during the holidays, and these have all got to be read. In my view, under the new legislation we are being asked to do something which is not possible. Up till now the Select Committee, as the House is well aware, has considered only Defence Regulations under the Emergency Powers Act, but now we have to deal with their grandchildren as well as great grandchildren and possibly great great grandchildren, too.

This is very interesting, but I am not quite sure what it has to do with the Business for next week.

It is urgent because these Orders only lie for a limited time in which they can be prayed against. The point is that we are now flooded out with an enormous amount of work, and I do not think it can possibly be done properly. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us time to debate it, because something will have to be done if the work is to be properly dealt with.

It has nothing to do with the Statutory Instruments Bill. I did not think the number of Orders was materially increasing and, anyway, a lot of Orders do not go to the scrutinising committee. However, if the committee is becoming congested—a possibility which I conceived when it was set up—we can find ways of easing its labours. I am perfectly willing to consider the matter and perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend, as chairman, will have a talk with me and see what can be done.

Under our terms of reference we have to study every Rule and Order upon which proceedings may be taken in either House in pursuance of any Act of Parliament, and under the new Supplies and Services Act these may be taken against many more Orders and we can pray against them.

May I on that point support the hon. and gallant Gentleman the chairman of the committee? The matter is urgent, and I would like to ask whether the Leader of the House can give a short time for a Debate on this matter because it is one which vitally concerns the House. I have in my hand the Rules and Orders to be considered at the next meeting. I have had them weighed at the Post Office and they come to I Ib. 7 ozs. There are nearly 100 of them and some of them run to 33 pages. It is very difficult indeed—I do not say impossible because I will not admit the word" impossible"—for the committee to carry out its functions adequately. It would be of great value if we had a short Debate, say, for two hours, in which the House might be taken into consultation.

It seems we are in danger of getting into a Coalition on this matter. It would be better if the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the chairman of the committee, were to see me, when I would discuss it quite fairly with him. Of course, if any change were recommended the opportunity for Debate would arise, but I hope hon. Members will not go on exhibiting large envelopes full of papers. I could produce such an envelope for a single meeting of a London County Council Committee.

I do not know how many more hon. Members wish to ask questions on Business, and I do not mind how long they take, but Private Members Questions have already got to half-past three, and there is an important matter to discuss in today's Business, but I suggest that hon. Members would do well not to take up the time of the House in asking questions about the Business for next week, because it will only curtail the limited time for the Debate on civil aviation.

I would like to ask the Leader of the House a question. The Government have received a resolution passed at a meeting of the Scottish Members of this House last week, in which the questions of the aircraft industry in Scotland and the gradual closing down of Hillington were raised. Will the Minister make a statement next week, or if not next week the following week?

First of all, I have not the least idea whether we have received the Motion or not—it is not the concern of my Department—and secondly, I cannot see what it has to do with the Business of the House next week.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to introduce a Bill to nationalise the Cooperative Societies?

Agriculture (Artificial Insemination) Bill

Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee C.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Thursday next.

Minutes of Procedings to be printed. [No. 57.]

Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill

Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered Tomorrow.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 59.]

Procedure

Second Report from the Select Committee (with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix) brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 58.]

Business of the House

Proceedings on the Motion relating to Civil Aviation exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) for One hour after a Quarter past Nine o'Clock.—[ Mr. H. Morrison. ]

Civil Aviation

3.30 p.m.

I beg to move,

The aeroplane ignores frontiers and there can be no doubt that the right organisation for air services is a world air authority to own and operate such services. This is not only desirable politically, but it is desirable on the grounds of efficient operation. The number of aircraft which will be needed for the world's air services is not large when measured by the air forces which we have seen in the war, and it is folly for each country to indulge in penny packets of nationalistic aviation. It would be idle to pretend that the nations are ready at the present time to entrust their air services to an internationally owned operating body. Several of the major operating countries would be absentees; but this is no reason why like-minded countries should not get together to create regional organisations whenever this is possible. We must be large-minded in civil aviation and cast away the impediments of a petty nationalism. My Noble Friend has endeavoured, and will con- tinue to endeavour, to seize every opportunity of working towards the goal I have outlined, but I am bound to report there is at present insufficient support even from European countries for a regional, operating organisation for Europe.

My Noble Friend's international negotiations have all had the greater goal in view. They have taken four forms. Firstly, in our negotiations for bilateral agreements with other countries, we have endeavoured to secure a form of agreement which would enable such bilateral negotiations to merge into an international pattern. This form, with slight amendments, has been adopted in the agreements recently signed with Canada and South Africa among our Dominions, and with Greece and Portugal among foreign countries; and many other countries have expressed their general agreement. It is hoped in the near future to complete negotiations with the other Dominions, India, many other European States, Egypt, Turkey and certain South American States. Secondly, arrangements have been made with Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India for the operation of commonwealth trunk routes in parallel partnership. Under this system each of the partners will make itself responsible for the ground organisation required by operators on a portion of the route. Revenue will be pooled and divided between the operators on a basis of frequencies operated, which will initially be the same. Expenditure will be charged to the party on whose behalf it is incurred. Aircraft of the same types will be used by the partners and will be flown throughout the whole route. Thirdly, we have entered into negotiations with other countries for pooling arrangements or joint operating companies. The formation of a joint operating company for Pacific services is contemplated and has been the subject of negotiations between the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand in close association with Canada. The heads of a pooling agreement for services between the United Kingdom and France have been reached between the operators. Other similar projects are in train. Fourthly, we have again taken up negotiations with the United States in the hope of reconciling the differences left unresolved at Chicago. I cannot of course anticipate the outcome of these talks, which are still proceeding, but an agreement between ourselves and the United States would be a great contribution to the satisfactory development of air transport.

In our efforts to secure the international planning of air transport, we are limited by the wishes of other nations. In the organisation of our own air services we are freer to realise our ideas. This is the part of the White Paper which has roused most interest and it has been received with some indignation and even surprise. I do not know why this should be. From a Socialist Government, Socialist measures are to be expected. The critics ask what are the reasons which have led the Government to decide not to carry out the Swinton plan. The Government are only doing the same as Lord Swinton himself, who has now abandoned his own plan. It is said that the change of plan has involved delay. There has not, in fact, been any delay because, under interim arrangements which I shall describe, every machine is being put into service as rapidly as it can be delivered from the manufacturers and crews can be trained. I challenge any hon. Member opposite to give a single example where aircraft and crews available to the Ministry of Civil Aviation have not been put to prompt use.

It is said that we need the co-operation of the surface interests and that such co-operation will be refused because the surface interests have not been given a financial holding. The charge does less than justice to the public spirit of those who administer our railway and shipping lines, and the travel agencies, and I am happy to say that they have not allowed any sordid considerations to stand in the way of the public good. My Noble Friend's consultations clearly indicate that we can count on the co-operation of the surface interests on a normal commercial basis in securing that co-ordination of the different forms of travel which is so desirable. It is objected that public enterprise may well be suited for a so-called natural monopoly such as gas or electricity, or for an old industry such as coal, but is unsuited for civil aviation, which is new, and which will have to meet fierce competition. It is precisely because it is new, and because it will have to meet fierce competition, that it is essential that it should be brought into public ownership. It is true that British airlines will meet fierce competition but the record of private enterprise in British air transport between the wars is not such as to inspire us with confidence in its ability to meet that challenge. So melancholy were the results, that even the Conservative Government of 1939 were led to create the British Overseas Airways Corporation which in fact, though not in theory, was given a monopoly of external airlines. The Conservative Party has, however, gone back on its tracks, and Lord Swinton has now abandoned his own plan in favour of unrestricted private enterprise. Lord Swinton left his offspring on the doorstep of my Noble Friend. My Noble Friend is very humane, but he was under no compulsion to bring it up.

Let us look a little further at the arguments that British airlines will have to meet fierce competition. In most other countries air transport companies operating scheduled services are already publicly owned. In 19 countries scheduled air transport is wholly owned by the State, in 23 countries it is partly owned, and in only 15 of the more important countries is there no State participation. The Conservative Party is always urging us to keep in step with the Dominions, and we are doing our best to oblige. Canada and South Africa have publicly-owned air transport undertakings, the New Zealand Government have decided in favour of nationalisation, and the Australian Government, though impeded by legal difficulties from the full nationalisation of inter-State air services, are setting up a State company to run such services. As in so many other matters, the Conservatives, while beating their Imperial tom-toms, have in fact lost touch with the Commonwealth.

The case for public ownership is not only strong but overwhelming. I mean public ownership as understood by the Labour Party and not "bureaucratic nationalisation" as caricatured by our opponents. Let me take two points which differentiate the reality from the caricature. Firstly, the corporations will be more comparable in their staffing with business than with the Civil Service. In the sphere of their own responsibility, civil servants are the most competent of men. My noble Friend is fortunate in being advised by civil servants in whose abilities, loyalty, integrity, and industry he can place complete reliance. But they would be the first to agree that they are not the men to run the airline corporations. The Minister will appoint the boards and will be responsible for seeing that they conform with general Government policy and with any international undertakings into which this country enters; but day-to-day management will be left to the boards. Secondly, my noble Friend believes it to be a good thing in the present stage of aeronautical development to have several corporations operating in different regions of the world. In these early days of air travel, when all is empirical, there are different ideas about operating techniques. We wish to see a fair trial given to each. There will not be competition between the corporations along the same route because they will be operating different routes, but we hope to see a healthy rivalry between them in attaining the best results.

Although B.O.A.C. is the only one of the three corporations which is not in the chrysalis stage, a spirit of emulation has already manifested itself precisely as we expected, to the great advantage of British air services. If the Government were to set up one corporation to run all British air services, there would be a danger that one man at the top might impose his ideas throughout the whole organisation. Moreover, if there were one exclusive corporation, a man with a strong personality, whose ideas differed from that corporation, might find himself, despite great abilities, excluded from the field of civil aviation. Our policy ensures that, even though his ideas may not be acceptable to one of the corporations, there will be at least two other avenues of employment open to him. The policy of three corporations does not mean that there will be any waste. As the White Paper indicates, common functions will not be triplicated, but centralised arrangements will be made for the many services that can best be run centrally. The small additional expense of three headquarters staffs will be more than compensated by the more intimate supervision which they will be able to maintain over their organisations, compared with the degree of supervision possible in one mammoth organisation. We shall be open to learn as we go on, but that is the view we now take.

I turn now to the question of aerodromes. The strongest critics of public ownership of airlines realise the arguments for bringing transport aerodromes into public ownership. The only criticism which I have personally heard is about the form of public ownership. Many aerodromes have been developed by municipalities, and municipal ownership is a form of public ownership which is wholly in accord with our policy. We owe a debt to the local authorities for their civic enterprise in developing aerodromes, when this was the right policy. It would, nevertheless, be a mistake, in the view of the Government, to leave municipal aerodromes in local ownership. A transport aerodrome is a matter of concern not only to the locality but to the whole country, and in some cases to the whole world. If we are to secure the orderly development of transport aerodromes, in the right places and up to the right standards, it is necessary to have a central plan. Since the State must go on providing, as it has done for many years, the meteorological, radio and control services it is a natural development that the State should own the aerodromes themselves. I realise that municipalities are proud of their aerodromes and will feel it a wrench to part with them. A consideration that will soften the parting is that aerodromes are nowadays very expensive things and the burden on the rates would be heavier than many municipalities would care to contemplate. The Government recognise, however, that municipalities have a direct interest in any aerodrome in their neighbourhood. There is the question of amenities, roads and so on. Arrangements will be made to ensure that local representations through local authorities, the chambers of commerce and similar bodies, can be made. My Noble Friend has had useful conversations on this subject with the Aerodrome Owners Association, and the suggestion that the aerodrome committees of local authorities might be kept in being and enlarged has been put to him.

Another suggestion which has been made is that the aerodromes, like the airlines, should be run by a public corporation. This suggestion has been carefully considered, but the arguments in this case are in favour of direct State ownership. The development of the internal aerodrome system will, for some years, be a continuing process which will involve close co-operation with Service needs and with the interests of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, the Ministry of War Transport—as regards roads—the Ministry of Agriculture and other Government Departments. Over-all planning, therefore, falls into the sphere of public administration. It is much easier for civil servants to deal with these other Ministries than it is for a public corporation. Moreover, a public corporation is naturally expected to pay its own way—[ Interruption. ] Why not? But it is extremely unlikely that transport aerodromes can be made so to do. The costs are heavy, and revenue from landing charges at reasonable rates will not cover outgoings. For these and many other reasons, the case for direct ownership by the State as opposed to a public corporation is strong. This does not mean that all aerodromes in the country are going to be, in the traditional phrase," run from Whitehall." It is our plan to set up a regional organisation, with its headquarters in general at the principal airport in the region. For example, there will be a Scottish region to administer all transport aerodromes in Scotland.

The argument brings me to the point for which, I have no doubt, Scottish Members have been waiting impatiently. I am glad Scotland shares our desire that Prestwick, which has such a fine record of service in the war, and whose freedom from fog is justly acclaimed, shall be maintained as a transoceanic airport, and be equipped with all the services and ancillary facilities necessary for that purpose. In a few weeks we propose to open a direct service between Prestwick and London. Prestwick is more than a good airport, it has become a symbol of Scotland's determination to play its due part in civil aviation, and the Government welcome this determination.

That is a different question. Prestwick, like Heathrow itself, is to be designated permanently as an international airport, and will be thrown open to the aircraft of all nations. Hurn, near Bournemouth, is to be designated only until Heathrow is complete. When Heathrow is ready, Hurn will no longer be needed as a transoceanic airport. Several bad-weather alternatives to Heathrow will be required, and among them will be Valley in Anglesey. As already announced, an aerodrome suitable for direct flights to the Continent will be provided in Northern Ireland.

The choice of aerodromes for London has presented much difficulty, Heathrow will be the main transoceanic terminus. We are pushing ahead with its construction, and the first three runways will be completed in May, some months ahead of the most optimistic date I have hitherto given to the House. There is a great story to tell about Heathrow, but I should prefer not to tell it now, as a Bill is likely to be introduced this Session to enable us to complete our plans for the airport, and that will be the appropriate occasion. Heathrow will be one of the largest air ports in the world, but until fully developed it will be needed mainly for transoceanic traffic. There is always the faithful Croydon, but Croydon has no hard runways and is not suitable for the large aircraft coming into service. The R.A.F has come to the rescue with Northolt; situated alongside Western Avenue, only 12 miles from the centre of the Metropolis, Northolt can make an immediate contribution to our needs. Thanks to the generous way in which my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air has met us, Northolt is, in the immediate future, to be used mainly for civil flying, and I wish to make full acknowledgment of this gesture. As B.O.A.C. takes over European services, they will be operated from Northolt, and foreign air lines will be admitted to Northolt on a basis of reciprocity. Internal air lines for the time being will continue to be operated from Croydon.

The policy which I have described cannot be put into effect until the Air Transport Bill has received the Royal Assent; but civil aviation must advance during the coming months. The White Paper makes a brief reference to the interim arrangements that have been made, and the House may be glad if I fill in some of the details. The problem which we have to face is two-fold. In the first place, we have to open civilian services to Europe. We have planned that in February B.O.A.C. shall begin to operate from Northolt 21 services a week to Paris; 14 services a week to Brussels; seven services a week to Amsterdam or the Hague; seven services a week to Copenhagen, and three services a week to Oslo. This will be in addition to the services which B.O.A.C. already operates to Lisbon, Madrid, Gibraltar and Stockholm. The process will be continued until B.O.A.C takes over all civilian loads and the reduced Transport Command confines itself to Service loads.

A further aspect of the problem in this interim period is that arrangements must be made for the time when the European and South American Corporations will "hive off" from B.O.A.C. The method by which this "hiving off" is to be done differs in the two cases. Under the Swinton plan, it had been proposed that the South American Corporation should be formed by British South American Airways, Ltd., a consortium of shipping companies, and B.O.A.C., and a small but valuable nucleus had been brought together for this purpose. Mr. John Booth was to have been chairman of the corporation and the distinguished old Imperial Airways pilot, Air Vice-Marshal Bennett, who showed his qualities in founding the Atlantic Ferry Service and the Pathfinder Force, was to have been its chief executive officer. We are availing ourselves of this nucleus of skilled persons. The entire shareholding of British South American Airways, Ltd., is to be bought by B.O.A.C., so that its capital will be wholly provided out of public funds. A new board will then be appointed. Subject to the directions of the Minister of Civil Aviation on general policy, this board will have sole responsibility for the work of the company, which will operate entirely independently of B.O.A.C. Mr. Booth has severed his active connection with the shipping world and has accepted my Noble Friend's invitation to become chairman; the other appointments will be announced in due course. Air Vice-Marshal Bennett will remain chief executive officer. When the Air Transport Bill receives the Royal Assent, the statutory corporation therein to be set up will purchase British South American Airways Ltd., from B.O.A.C. and, under the name of British South American Airways, will be responsible for all services between the United Kingdom and South America.

During the interim period, the European services will be the responsibility of B.O.A.C., which has given to certain members of the Board the special duty of organising these European services. They will create their own organisation within B.O.A.C., and, when the Bill receives the Royal Assent, this organisation will split off from its parent and become a statutory public corporation under the name of British European Airways, operating also the internal network, which will continue until that date to be run by the existing operators.

In another place yesterday my Noble Friend announced certain changes which he has made in the boards, and also that Sir Harold Hartley and Mr. Gerard d'Erlanger have been charged with the task of organising the European services. They will eventually become Chairman and Chief Executive of British European Airways.

The White Paper lays down that it will be the general policy of His Majesty's Government to require the Corporations to use aircraft made by British manufacturers. This is undoubtedly right. British manufacturers, whether of air frames or of engines, need not fear comparison with any in the world. Only six months have passed since the end of the war, and we have four important new civil transport types now undergoing flight trials; the Tudor I, the Viking, the Wayfarer and the Dove. A fifth, the Hermes, unfortunately crashed on its first flight, but we hope that this setback will be overcome. Nevertheless, we are suffering now, and shall suffer for some years, from the inevitable neglect of civil aviation during the war. Whatever view we may take in retrospect—and there is room for more than one opinion—it was an understandable division of the war effort that the United Kingdom should concentrate on combat aircraft and should rely for transport aircraft on the United States; but the decision has resulted in the difficulties we now have to face. This wartime concentration on combat aircraft means that there will be three stages in the production of British civil aircraft. Today, I shall have time to mention only the most important of the types on which we are relying for regular air services.

In the first stage, we are compelled to rely on conversions of bombers. We have 27 Lancastrians in service, or about to be- put into service, and another 12 are on order. They are used by B.O.A.C. on the Australian route, fitted up for six sleeping passengers, and will be used by B.S.A.A. on the South American route, fitted up for 14 sitting passengers. We are obtaining from the Royal Air Force 12 Halifax C VIIIs, which we shall use on the West African routes and probably to India. We have 24 Sunderland Flying boats in use, and have asked for another 12 Sunderland IIIs, to be converted to civil use by next Autumn. In addition, we have 13 C. class flying boats and one G. class flying boat in service; this G. class boat will probably be used before long on flying boat service to Athens and Cairo, for which a proving flight was despatched last week.

In the second stage, we shall be using civil developments of types originally designed as military aircraft. In the line of the Lancaster—pedigree is almost as important in aircraft as in horses or dogs—we come first to the York. Twenty-five civil Yorks will have been delivered by the end of February, and we have asked for another 12, to be delivered within the following months. The York is used on services to India and on the new Springbok service to South Africa. On the 29th of this month the frequency of the Springbok service is to be increased to twice a week each way, and as Yorks become available it will be increased to six services a week in each direction. The York service to India is to be increased to a daily frequency. After the York, in the same line of ancestry, come the Tudor I and Tudor II. The Tudor I, of which 20 have been ordered, has been designed to carry 12 sleeping passengers across, the North-Atlantic. The prototype has now almost completed its tests and the order should be completed in October. The Tudor II, of which we have ordered 79, is being fitted with 22 bunks, or 36 to 44 seats, in different versions. It is intended primarily for the Commonwealth and the South American routes. The prototype is expected to fly in February, and delivery is to begin in May, 1946, and to be completed by May, 1947.

The Viking incorporates experience gained in the Wellington and Warwick, and the flight trials of the prototypes has justified an order for 108 of this aircraft, which will be the machine chiefly used on the European routes and on some main internal routes. It seats 21 passengers and has a cruising speed of about 220 miles an hour. The order should be completed, or almost complete, in 1946 and the Viking will be put on the European services in the summer of this year. Among flying boats, this stage is exemplified by the Sunderland IV, of which the civil version is to be known as the Solent. Some of these will probably be used on the Australian services.

In the third stage, there is a complete break with previous designs, and we come to aircraft specifically designed from the outset for civil use. Some of these are private ventures, such as the Bristol Wayfarer, and the Bristol Freighter, passenger and cargo versions of the same machine. We have ordered 12 freighter and 13 passenger versions, the latter for internal routes and to supplement the Viking on external routes. The first production machine is due for delivery in March and the order should be completed in the summer. Most of the machines in this stage are types recommended by the Brabazon Committee and developed with State backing. The smallest and earliest is the Dove. This eight-seater will be useful for feeder services, and should find a ready market abroad as well as in this, country. The prototype is going through its trial flights, and production is expected to begin in August. Some of the other Brabazon types can only be described as revolutionary in design. Most of them will eventually be powered by straight jets or gas turbines driving propellers. They will be fitted with pressure cabins so that they may cruise at the most economic height in the stratosphere. In his pressure cabin the passenger, rushing through the thin air at great speed 30,000 or 40,000 feet above the earth, will be as comfortable as in his own drawing room.

At this point it is necessary for me to draw the veil of secrecy. But I can say with confidence, that when this stage is reached British aviation, given vision and initiative—which is almost identical with the continuance of the Labour Government—need not fear any competition; and when these aircraft come into service, from 1948 onwards, the British aeronautical industry will acknowledge the debt which it owed to the stimulus of gas turbine power plants and pressurisation given in 1945 and 1946 by my Noble Friend.

We have to plan far ahead, but we must learn from the example of Thales who, while looking at the stars, fell into a well. We must not plan for the future to the neglect of the present. Our present difficulties are an honourable legacy from the war, but they are difficulties none the less.

We are faced with a special problem in the North Atlantic. The 12 Liberators and three Boeing flying-boats must be taken out of service before long. The Tudor I may not be ready to go into regular air line service until next year. We have had to take emergency action to prevent an awkward gap in the British service across the North Atlantic at a time when two American airlines are operating to this country with the latest machines. We have accordingly given serious consideration to the question of ordering a small number of suitable American aircraft, and have decided to buy five Constellations. These will enable B.O.A.C. to operate a daily service across the North Atlantic beginning probably in July. Cruising speeds and payloads differ under different conditions, but it may not be misleading if I say that the cruising speed of these Constellations is 250 to 260 miles an hour, and that they are fitted for 47 passengers by day. Their purchase will do no harm to British industry, because we shall be able to take every machine that British manufacturers can produce in the next few years. The combination of Constellations and Tudor Is will provide a well balanced service across the North Atlantic, capable of meeting the needs of all travellers. British manufacturers would suffer real harm if there were no British service across the Atlantic next summer.

Hon. Members may like to know what is the present position of the Lend-lease Dakota aircraft hitherto employed by B.O.A.C. The position is that B.O.A.C., operating in pursuit of the common allied war effort, has been using 56 Dakotas on Lend-lease terms. These have now been purchased without restrictions on their use, and will be used on European and other medium-stage services. In addition, another 16 Dakotas have been purchased on the same basis to take the place of 13 Lend-lease Lodestars, which are to be surrendered to the United States. In this difficult interim period, we propose to make another departure from our principle that British airlines must use British machines. The allies have captured a number of Ju. 52s, the transport aircraft which was of such value to the Germans before and during the war. We have arranged for 25 of these machines to be used on the internal routes until the British machines that we want are available. The Ju. 52 is a sound and dependable aircraft, which the French have been using for some time on their service between Paris and London. We are not ashamed to improvise in this way, while waiting for the products of British industry.

I turn now to a number of financial questions. In the view of His Majesty's Government, airline operation can be made to pay, and that not simply by lifting travellers from surface forms of transport. It is the case that many persons who now travel by rail or ship will prefer the greater speed and comfort of the aeroplane. But more important, is the fact that air transport can create its own traffic. The fact that India can be reached in one day and Australia in three will lead many people to travel who could not formerly have spared the time for a surface voyage. Air transport can be made to pay, but there are two precedent conditions. The first is that we deliberately cater for mass travel, and this His Majesty's present advisers can certainly be counted on to do. The greatest curse which has overlain British civil aviation in the past, is the "V.I.P." mentality, the belief that this great gift of air transport, capable of so much benefit to the world if properly handled, is run for the benefit of a few Very Important Persons. The second condition is that the nations reach agreement to refrain from the tempting but delusive use of competitive subsidisation. I say "competitive subsidization" advisedly, and wish to elaborate a distinction implicit in the White Paper.

Subsidisation of an airline to enable it to gain competitive advantages over the airlines of another country on the same route is wasteful and destructive of efficiency, and there is no end to this process except general bankruptcy. But every country has certain routes which will always be unremunerative, and along which no foreign operator will wish to run, but which ought to be operated in the public interest. The air services be- tween Scotland and the Islands are an example of services of such public benefit that they must be maintained even if they should not be remunerative; and the argument applies also to some Commonwealth routes.

It would be wishful thinking, however, to assert that air transport can immediately be made self-supporting. The White Paper explains in some detail how the approach to self-support will be made in stages, and I need not elaborate. The question of subsidies is bound up with fares. It is the hope of His Majesty's Government that fares on international routes will be settled by international agreement, the ultimate basis being the operating costs of the most efficient operator using the most economical modern machines, and note being taken of any recommendations by the International Air Transport Association. Fares on internal routes will invite comparison with road and rail, and my Noble Friend intends to set up an advisory body to which the public can make representations on fares, adequacy of services, coordination of time-tables and so on.

The public ownership of airlines does not present such big problems of compensation as some other industries. Naturally, there will be fair payment for all physical assets taken over by the State or the transport corporations, and in particular for aerodromes, whether municipally owned or privately owned. The basis and form of payment will be laid down in the Bill. We prefer to speak of this item as "payment for assets" rather than compensation. The term compensation is more properly applied to payments to airline operators or former airline operators who will not be allowed under the Government's policy to run regular scheduled services. The Government share the view of their predecessors that no one has a vested interest in the air, and have yet to be convinced that there would be any justification for paying compensation to private operators for good will or development expenses, which in many cases is a euphemism for accumulated losses. It has been suggested that there is a difference between the present position and that under the Swinton plan, because no private operation of scheduled air services is now to be permitted. The suggestion will not bear close examination. Under the Swinton plan, the right to resume operation was contingent on obtaining a licence. If an operator did not succeed in getting a licence, he would not have obtained compensation. The position would, in all respects, have been similar to an operator excluded under the present plan.

The White Paper closes with a reference to flying activities other than regular scheduled services. It is not proposed to exclude private operators from charter and taxi work, but I want to give a warning that any attempt to run regular services under the guise of charter work will not be tolerated. The air taxi must be a taxi, not a pirate bus. It will be open under this policy for firms to maintain their own passenger and freight aircraft for the firm's use. No restrictions will be placed in the way of private flying except such as are necessary in the interests of safety. It is my Noble Friend's policy to encourage club flying and gliding, and he has been in consultation with my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Aircraft Production on ways of so doing. It is the Government's desire that the youth of this country should be as airminded in peace as they were in war, and we have come to the conclusion that the best way is to make available to clubs, at low prices, about a hundred light aircraft that are surplus to Service needs. The clubs which benefit will be required to satisfy conditions which will be laid down to ensure that they are genuine flying clubs.

With this White Paper, British civil aviation enters upon a new phase in its history and one which will, I believe, capture the same lustre for British air transport as our ships have won at sea. To my honourable Friends, I say that the policy in this White Paper gives us the first opportunity to demonstrate that public ownership can be successful, not only in the class of services known as public utilities, but in a young and highly competitive industry. Our success will be the greatest vindication of the principles for which we have stood for 40 years, first as a despised minority, and now as His Majesty's Government; and it can be the first step in achieving the still greater goal of an international owning and operating authority. To hon. Members opposite, I know that this great experiment in public enterprise must be unpalatable; but they know also that it is in accord with the temper of the country as manifested at the General Election. It is important that civil flying should be rightly organized, and we believe that we are giving it the best organisation. But there is something more important than organisation; it is that civil aviation should get clear orders to fly straight ahead. Those clear orders have now been given—the beam is set, the machine is on the wing—and I hope that hon. Members opposite when they have vented their feelings in the Division Lobby—if that is their intention—will work for the success of British civil aviation even where they dislike our principles. We are engaged in a great new adventure. The conquest of the air calls forth the same qualities that sent Drake round the world; and he was not in the least inhibited by the fact that his ships were publicly owned and furnished. In the same spirit of infectious enthusiasm that marked the Elizabethan seamen, I ask the House to endorse the commission given in this White Paper to the merchant venturers of the air.

4.17 p.m.

This House is indeed fortunate in counting among its Members a considerable number of hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have earned great distinction in the practical application of the art of flying. We look forward with eagerness to their contributions to the Debate from both sides of the House. In my view, in our search to find a means to secure for our country the position which is due to her in the development of civil aviation, we can do no better than to seek the guidance of those who have won for her, in the realm of military aviation, a position of predominance and renown which will ever be enshrined in history.

For myself, alas, I can make no such claim. I have, indeed, travelled by air many thousands and hundreds of thousands of miles in the last few years and I have, I think, as varied an experience as any mere civilian of the floors, bucket seats, bomb bays, the turrets and, occasionally even, the upholstered chairs of a great variety of aircraft. Whilst I have always had the profoundest admiration for the young men whose duty it has been to transport me about, I am afraid I have never been able to learn, or make the slightest acquaintence with, the complicated but fascinating technique which they follow; and even my few weeks as Secretary of State for Air could not teach me that. Indeed my opportunities are now still more slender, because I am only a kind of superannuated or cidevant "V.I.P." Whatever may be our final conclusions as to the principles on which it should be organised, we have, properly used, the human material from which to build a civil air service that need fear no rivals.

There is another matter, mentioned by the hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate, upon which we are equally in agreement. We have fallen far behind other competitors for one main reason. In this sphere as in many others, we have sacrificed everything to military needs. The body and soul of Britain were given unreservedly to war. By agreement with our American Allies, we concentrated our productive capacity upon the manufacture of bombers and fighters; and we made them. We left to the Americans the manufacture of transport aircraft, with the understanding that they would supply our war needs. That policy has left us, for the needs of peace, woefully weak, but it was characteristic of the spirit in which we fought the war, concentrating upon immediate and urgent tasks; neglecting future advantages; throwing everything we had into the struggle, and if we are now suffering from our own magnanimity, we have nothing of which to be ashamed, and much, indeed, of which to be proud.

Before proceeding to any detailed criticism, I would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the skill with which he has carried out his task today. He took a little time to get off the ground, but once airborne, he found it almost equally difficult to land. Perhaps like Thales, he fell into a well, but he did not find very much of the truth in the well. I have been an Under-Secretary, and I know the peculiar delicacy of the position of an Under-Secretary who represents a great Department in the House of Commons. He has to recommend a policy of which he cannot be the chief author, and for which he carries only the subordinate responsibility Moreover, if rumour is right in this case, the hon. Gentleman is doubly embarrassed because I understand that even his Minister has not been altogether a free agent: Left to himself, we are told, he might well have been satisfied with the compromise scheme put forward by Lord Swinton, and that would not have been remarkable, since it was accepted by a Cabinet including the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Lord President, the President of the Board of Trade, and so forth. Perhaps I may remark in passing how politic is the attitude of the present Administration towards the agreements reached in the Coalition. According as it may suit them, their memory is either singularly tenacious or conveniently weak. However, in this case we are informed it was the powerful approach of the back bench Members of the Socialist civil aviation committee which has been too strong They have pulled the strings, and I congratulate them. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have danced like agreeable marionettes to their tune. "Winster proposes; Bowles disposes."

On what grounds have Ministers rejected the Swinton plan? Not on the grounds that it is impracticable or unworkable, for in that case they could not have agreed to it in the Cabinet. They have sacrificed it because, as they are doing over so large a field, they are sacrificing the practical and the empirical to the doctrinaire and the theoretical approach. The Parliamentary Secretary boasted of it, and it is indeed clear from the opening paragraph of this White Paper, to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred in detail. It tells us that Ministers would have liked to place their air services under the control of a single international owning and operating body. What a hope! Alas for human nature—especially other people's human nature. Could it really be supposed that those nations which are far ahead of us would not have to join a pool to which they were to make all the contributions? This plan, this international club, has fallen to the ground, and this proposal, which was always unrealistic, has proved stillborn. After that, His Majesty's Government rather apologetically proposed to bring in what they call "necessarialy a national plan." Would that it were! It is a plan that has already caused six months' waste of time, It will be the cause, I fear, of many more months of useless delays. It sacrifices wantonly much knowledge and experience; it will impose an unnecessary expen- diture upon the taxpayers and unnecessary restriction upon the development of ingenuity and resourcefulness in aviation. In other words, it is a plan for ''nationalisation," but it is not a "national plan."

Nor do I see even the political necessity. Of practical advantages there are none in adopting this scheme. I understand now—I have always understood—that the orthodox or what I might call the "high and dry" Socialists, believe, or affect to believe, in the whole dogmatic creed of "national ownership of all the means of production, distribution and exchange." Yet now, under the high authority of the Lord President, expressed frequently in Canada and even occasionally in England, a more latitudinarian interpretation is being gradually accepted, at least, in the first stages. He has adopted the theme that there is, in the great range of the economic life of the nation, a sphere both for public and private effort. What at any given time the precise delimitation is to be is a matter for argument and adjustment. Even the virgin purity of the President of the Board of Trade has yielded to this seductive conception. He boasted that even when he and his Friends have done their worst, 80 per cent. of the total production of the country will still be in private hands. Of course, it is patent that the free sphere must remain large, for how else are we to find the personnel fit and trained to manage the nationalised sector?

The Parliamentary Secretary told us in his speech today that civil servants with their moderate emoluments and high level of security were unsuitable for the work. Only those will do who have been trained in the competitive field which on other occasions is stigmatised by the Home Secretary as "incompetent," and by the Lord Chancellor as in "pretty bad shape." However that may be, whether the sphere allocated to free enterprise is to be large or small—only just sufficient to be a kind of forcing house to propagate continual new stock, calculated to resist the enervating and debilitating atmosphere of the public domain—at any rate, this doctrine of dual dominion is of growing repute in Government circles. I welcome it the more readily because I think I was largely one of the original authors of this agreeable compromise.

But to this plan, three assumptions have always been vital: firstly, that practical consideration should alone determine the decision in every case; secondly, that the onus of proof must be upon those contending that an industry or a service should pass under public ownership; and thirdly, that, broadly speaking, the new and growing industries are the appropriate field for free initiative and speculation; while, perhaps, some of those which have, as it were, outgrown their lusty youth, and, abandoning the zest and wild oats of competition, have settled down to the routine of the monopolistic middle or old age, might be regarded as "ripe for nationalisation" because there was no room for further development. Who could ever say that civil aviation was indispensably ripe for nationalisation? The fruit is not even green; it is not yet set from the flower. The tree has hardly budded. Of all industries or services which I can readily call to mind, I can imagine none so unsuitable to such treatment. As the Parliamentary Secretary has rightly told us, the air is to modern England what the sea was to England of old. If we are to retain our proud position, won and secured by so many hundreds of years' effort, we must fly our flag as daringly and as ubiquitously in the air, as over the Seven Seas. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke to us of merchant adventurers. Here, above all, what we need is spunk, not red tape, bravura, not bureaucracy. We want the heady, and if you like, intoxicating wine of youth for competition, not the toast and water and regular habits of old age.

For these reasons, and because we are faced with so many handicaps, Members on this side of the House believe, and have always believed, that the best way to put British civil aviation on its feet would be to give full scope to free enterprise. In this field, above all others, we need qualities of inventiveness, audacity and initiative. We recognise that large finance would be required, but that finance would only be required progressively. Much is already available, but much more could easily be found from private resources with the good will of the Capital Issues Committee, which holds the key to investment. If more finance were needed, then a special instrument has already been prudently forged for this very purpose. I refer to the Industrial and Commercial and Financial Corporation, and to the Finance Corporation for industry. The former is intended for smaller, and the second for larger, operations. Also, the former is especially respectable, because it is presided over by a distinguished and opulent Socialist, selected, appointed and ennobled for the purpose.

This particular Noble Lord was selected by the Governor of the Bank of England in the days when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) occupied the position which I now hold.

That makes him still more respectable. Under such a plan, at any rate, there would have been no difficulty in finding the finance. Of course, there would have to be a proper method of control, such as existed in Great Britain before the war, and a licensing authority on the lines still followed in the United States would be required, both to ensure that would-be operators had a sufficient substance, and to prevent excessive competition between British companies on particular routes. Nevertheless, in spite of the predilections of many of my hon. Friends, the Conservatives in the Coalition Government accepted another plan—the Swinton plan, not necessarily the ideal plan, but as a working compromise. They stood by it loyally. But now that Ministers have broken their own engagement we consider ourselves free. Had we been returned to power we should certainly have carried through the Swinton plan. I will give the reason. Although it may appear to hon. Members opposite to be an outmoded, old-fashioned and even counter-revolutionary foible, we still hold the view that a man should honour an agreement to which he has put his name.

The Government plan, to a superficial observer, seems not very dissimilar from the Swinton plan. There is the same trinitarian layout. There are three corporations, not one; there are three managerial groups, not one, co-equal, but not, if we have anything to do with it, co-eternal. Of course, the plans are really very different. The Government corporations differ from each other only in name. They are, in reality, as like as two peas, or perhaps I should say three peas. There are three chairmen, three boards of directors, and, unless General Critchley's example makes it difficult, presumably three general managers. The capital of all three corporations will be provided entirely by the Government, according to paragraph 8 of the White Paper. The major policy of all three corporations will be vested in the Minister. But all are equally subjected to political pressure. All appointments will be in the gift of the Minister and all will depend upon deficiency grants. But none will produce any estimates of costs and revenues, and the accounts of all will be veiled by the same equal obscurity. Paragraph 6 Section (ii) of the White Paper talks of: ready achieved goes for nothing. The long and valuable experience of these essential partners is swept away, and the mere combining of the old devices of interlocking directorships is not the same thing as a partnership undertaking to risk their own capital. All the normal business considerations which influence men whose sole purpose was the rapid establishment of a powerful British civil aviation are sacrificed to pure political dogma. If our airmen and aircraft cannot be internationalised, then let them, at least, be nationalised.

There is one other danger to which I would like to draw the attention, of the House. I have observed that the Government are so far restricting their Socialist adventures, broadly speaking, to the industries in the home market. The great exporting industries, shipping, textiles, and so forth, are to be spared. This is a very wise precaution because those are competitive fields not easily to be got over by the mere granting of subsidies or the raising of internal prices, and aviation is, of course, in constant and keen competition with foreign rivals. Is it wise in this sphere, where international competition is very acute and where already—I have had some little experience of it—there is a good deal of friction and misunderstanding, that we should enter in now with a fully nationalised. state monopoly as competitors? I believe it would do nothing except add to the suspicion and difficulties between nations, give us additional obstacles in the technical field, and, perhaps, make new obstacles in the international field.

There are a number of other criticisms of detail that I could make of this extraordinary White Paper, at once a pompous, ill-written, and disingenuous document, but I will leave most of them to those of my hon. Friends who have far greater technical knowledge than I. I will select a few. In paragraph (4) there is a suggestion which was rather hinted at today by the Parliamentary Secretary, that somehow or another the full nationalisation of British air transport will facilitate co-operation with the Dominions. I wish to state categorically, on Lord Swinton's authority and the authority of documents which he has given me, that Australia, New Zealand and every other Dominion would be fully prepared to co-operate with us whether we adopted a State monopoly, a compromise plan, or a complete system of private enterprise. They are not willing to interfere in our political affairs.

Is it not a fact that complete agreement was reached on our Commonwealth air policy before this Government came in, and that it still stands?

Yes, that is so. There is a suggestion which I want to make quite clear, both in the speech and the paragraph, that we would benefit by adopting a certain plan.

Paragraph (5), which is really one of the gems of the Paper, does not impress me except in its delicious phrase "disinterested expansion." It says that the policy offers the best guarantee to the public of disinterested expansion of the nation's air services. I have heard of "disinterested management" which, so far as I know, consists of selling sandwiches with the beer. It is said to have commended itself to the good people of Carlisle, but on the few occasions when I have visited Carlisle I have found—[An HON. MEMBER: "No beer"]—no beer and no sandwiches. But disin- terested management so easily becomes uninterested management, uninterested either in the pockets of the taxpayer or in the convenience of the travelling public. The Minister of Mines told us the other day to look on cheap coal as a thing of the past. I am afraid it is going to be equally hopeless to look upon cheap travel, at any rate by air, as a thing of the future.

I am also concerned with the position of the staff employed by the new Corporation, subject on which the Parliamentary Secretary said not a word today. The staff and employees are of some importance to us, on this side of the House at any rate. Is it the intention to take over the staffs employed by the air companies on, say, 1st November, 1945? If so, will the present obligations of the companies to them be assured? Will adequate Statutory—I repeat Statutory—provision be made for their protection? Always before when compulsory amalgamation has been imposed by law, or businesses have been acquired compulsorily by the State, this has been the practice of both Conservative and Liberal Governments. For instance, in the Railway Amalgamation Act of 1921 the most elaborate and stringent provisions were put into the Schedule which guaranteed that no one should be worse off as a result of the amalgamation than he would otherwise have been. I press this point the more categorically and energetically because I have observed in the Coal Bill no protection of any kind to the staff and I trust that, if legislation follows this White Paper, the Minister of Civil Aviation will get a little nearer to the standards followed by capitalist Governments.

In paragraph (16) there is a vague reference to the machinery, that is the advisory committees by which the public will be safeguarded from exploitation by this State monopoly. But we are not told whether this machinery is to be advisory or judicial. If it is advisory it is useless. When our Victorian predecessors gave Statutory powers to monopolies—as the railways then were—they set up the most elaborate machinery to protect the public from exploitation and the traders from discrimination by differential prices. There is not a word about this.

Paragraphs (17) and (18), dealing with finance, are the most vague of all. I don't know how the Chancellor approved them but he agrees to so much nowadays and millions are agreed to in an airy way. I suppose they just got away with it. We are not told whether there will be any statistical information as to how the accounts will be made up, by whose authority they will be checked, and since this is now public money, every penny of it, I should like to know whether the auditor and Comptroller-General will deal with the accounts? It is the people's money and it should be guarded by the constitutional scrutiny of Parliamentary tradition.

I will not, of course, deal with the question of compensation—(HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?")—for the reason that I am a director of a railway company and it is a tradition in this House, certainly from the Front Bench, to pass by a question in which one might be said to have an interest. I am old fashioned enough to respect this tradition, though the question of my interest in this case is remote, and I would leave other hon. Members to discuss it.

There is another matter upon which I should like information. What guarantee will there be for charter and taxi operators? Will the corporation be able to drive them out of its field either by refusing them aircraft through the Ministry of Aircraft Production or by cutting prices? If not, will there be an independent tribunal like the Railway Rates Tribunal which will fix the rates and protect the independent operator? Further, is there any guarantee that their businesses, once they have been got going, will not suddenly be acquired by a fresh access of zealous, dogmatic energy by Lord Winster and his colleagues?

There is one last point, relating to design, development, and the placing of orders for aircraft. After all, it is, in the main, the aircraft that matters, when all is said and done. I do not know whether hon. Members have carefully studied what this plan involves, but I would ask, Is it wise, in the realm of design, development and ordering, to place so wide a gulf between the user and the producer? I am not quite sure. I believe that my old colleague and leader might agree that it is not. I am not sure that the separation between the War Office and the manufacturer, or between the Air Ministry and the manufacturer, was right, even in time of war. It was set up by the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Air- craft Production. It is remarkable that the Admiralty never agreed to that dualism, even in war. I am sure that it is wrong in peace.

Under this scheme, not only the Ministry of Civil Aviation but the Ministry of Aircraft Production, two great Ministries, stand between the user and the maker. Those are not war Ministries, with all the admirable recruits from free and private enterprise. Naturally those people have gone back into their businesses, and those Ministries are relapsing into their normal bureaucratic routine. I have had a little experience in these matters. I do not believe that this system will get the best results or keep that distance ahead of the world, in design and development, which we ought to keep.

I do not know why the Government hold to these proposals, which are not being pressed in this instance by a trade union or by organised labour in the industry. There is no old tradition in the Labour Party which demands this scheme, which is inconsistent—hopelessly inconsistent—with the general theme of partnership between State and industry to which I have referred. There is no public demand for it. It is in existence only because of the pressure of a small group in the Minister's own party. At any rate, we cannot be parties to such a plan and we shall resolutely oppose it. We shall oppose it not upon doctrinal grounds, but upon practical grounds. If Minister's decide to go through with their proposals, the responsibility rests with them and with their party. British civil aviation is now far behind, and I fear that the system outlined in the White Paper will further delay its development. I trust that I may be wrong. It is true that, so great is the ingenuity and tenacity of the British people, they may be able to struggle even through this vale of darkness and confusion.

I remember that when I was a child one of the most agreeable features of my life was being taken sometimes, to watch a queue standing outside a theatre, the crowd being formed up while a number of artists tried to entertain them while they were waiting for the main show. Among those artists there was often one worthy of the great Houdini himself. He used voluntarily to submit himself to being tied up with ropes and chains. His thumbs were tied together and his arms were tied behind his back. His feet would be tied up. Then, by some incredible act of ingenuity and to the delight of the spectators, he would burst out of his shackles—and then collect the pennies. I pray it may be so with civil aviation. I trust that civil aviation may escape even from these ugly bonds which threaten to strangle its young life; but if that should prove too great a task we now know, and the nation will in the future know, where to lay the responsibility and from whom to exact the retribution. For that backwardness in its development which is now, owing to the war, a measure of our sacrifice and our glory, will then become the measure of our failure and of our shame.

4.56 p.m.

The opportunity to make my observations at this stage is appreciated. After listening to the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) it almost makes one feel that one Would like to transgress the custom and convention which govern maiden speeches by Members of this House. His speech was provocative generally, and bloodcurdling in its final passages, but it was somewhat lacking in its logic. May I take the House away from it, back to the principle which was laid down by the Parliamentary Secretary for Civil Aviation and ask the House to address itself to domestic matters?

The very wide and statesmanlike programme which the Parliamentary Secretary has laid before us is an indication that the aeronautical achievements of the present day are now to be used for the beneficent purposes of mankind. That is a very great omen for the future, but I have a little of what I may call administrative anxiety. Although the Parliamentary Secretary has stated that he will make a statement on the matter, I do not know whether he might be able, in his reply, to deal with the points I propose to make I hope he will be able to make some observations regarding Heathrow and about the criticisms which have been made in the Press that that place is totally unfitted for civil aviation. I do not want to weary the House by quoting the newspapers which have made remarks on this matter. My hon. Friend is fully au fait with the criticism to which I refer.

I would make a little special pleading. I know that will not embarrass the House. In the short space of time I have been here I have learned that special pleading is often the order of the day. I want to refer to that symbol of stability, in another place of that staple industry which the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have continually asked to make its full contribution to the export markets of the world, the wool textile industry. I want to follow this point through logically. That industry will be conditioned in its success by the higher level of its technological development. Some few days ago, on behalf of that part of the city of Bradford which I represent, representations were made to the right hon. Lady who is now in charge of the Ministry of Education, that steps should be taken to increase our technological status and development by giving us university status and facilities to continue research of the subjects with which. Bradford technical college has been so pre-eminently successful, in order to benefit the export trade in wool textiles.

I want to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of civil aviation that he might help us by another tripartite arrangement in the textile industry.—industry, science and aviation. He can assist us, in the dilemmas and difficulties with which we shall be confronted in the future. There are in the White Paper, which my hon. Friend has so commendably explained and amplified, several paragraphs to which I hope to make further reference. I notice that in paragraph (19) attention is drawn to municipal airfields. I do not know whether the Ministry has now definitely excluded the possibility of municipal authorities forming a part of the administration, or whether my hon. Friend is still open to suggestions in that direction. I have the privilege to represent two authorities, Bradford and Leeds, which are joint partners in an airfield scheme. It is true that those civic authorities, like other authorities, have expended only a bagatelle—a matter of, some £200,000—in the development of civil aviation. In these days of astronomical figures, £200,000 is quite a small amount, compared, for instance, with the £27,000,000 for Heathrow. There are, however, very important aspects of the matter to which I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to address his attention.

The progressive civic authorities have applied themselves to developments in the field of civil aviation. In Bradford, Leeds and the West Riding we are not" hare brained"; we are certainly" air-minded." In 1930, we acquired Yeadon Aerodrome, which was subsequently taken over by the Royal Air Force in 1937, and then by the Ministry itself in 1940. It has been a very important production centre. The Lancaster was manufactured at Yeadon, and the type of aircraft is now being changed over to the York and the Anson. During the course of this production and development, Yeadon was so developed that one can now respectfully suggest that it would form a very good unit in the civil aviation scheme of the future. There are very cogent reasons why it should do. The civic authorities and the chambers of commerce in the neighbourhood are interested in it. Inter alia, I have received information that Air Vice-Marshal Ambler has now returned to his former interests and that his advice and experience are available. The circumstances now, with the termination of the war, are such as will help to stimulate civil aviation.

There are one or two points to which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give favourable consideration. The substitution of the York for the Lancaster is likely to encourage the development of the works at Yeadon, which have dropped from 12,000 workers to 6,000 workers. This aerodrome would be a very valuable asset to the wool textile area. We also feel that in that region an additional industry to the wool textile industry is very desirable. Moreover, we would like to retain and make use of the experience and craftsmanship of the people now occupied in production at these works. Further, from the practical point of view., if we are to succeed in making quick contacts and maintaining contacts with customers of the wool textile industry the world over, we want the quickest possible transport service. Those who are familiar with the wool textile industry will know the amazing variety Of its products and the hundred and one influences which are at work upon the output of the industry—the changes of fashion, the use of new fibres, and so on, all of which are extremely important factors calling for immediate attention. If we can prevail upon the Parliamentary Secretary to look favourably upon the establishment in the area of a unit for civil aviation, we shall not only be able to retain this industry there, but it will offer alternative occupations to the people of the area, and there will be granted to the wool textile trade a facility which it needs in maintaining wide international contacts. The establishment of a civil aviation unit in that area will serve an industry which renders great export service to the country.

I hope the whole House will approve the last three paragraphs of the White Paper. The broad explanations which the Parliamentary Secretary submitted to us this afternoon give us every reason for encouraging at the earliest possible stage the implementation of the policy for which the Government stand. The last paragraph of the White Paper is a statement of principles for which this Government stand. As the right hon. Member for Bromley indulged in poetic and literary allusions, perhaps it would not be inappropriate for me to say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary:

5.8 p.m.

I am sure the whole House will join with me in congratulating the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Titterington) on his admirably cogent maiden speech. We shall look forward to having from him in the future many more contributions of the same quality.

We had from the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) a very searching analysis of the White Paper. The right hon. Gentleman gave a Parliamentary performance not only of sparkling wit, but of real force. We have heard, also, in this Debate, the preliminary barrage of the ideological conflict of which, I suppose, we shall hear a great deal more in the coming weeks and months. For my part, I say this after- noon—a plague on both your ideologies. It seems to me that the question we have to decide here is whether this particular scheme embodied in the White Paper will give us the safest, the most reliable, and the most efficient, air service, whether it will provide the most effective method—that is very important—of meeting the very strenuous, it may be even the very tough competition, we shall have to face from other countries, and lastly, whether it will enable us to establish this country as a first-class civil aviation Power, a position to which it never attained in the past. Those seem to be the factors that we have to take into account when we are considering this White Paper. Is it going to achieve these things? Is it the best means that we can devise—let me put it no higher than that—for achieving those ends? We have had many different opinions upon that. I should like to quote Lord Reith, who has had some experience in the management of public corporations, as Chairman of B.O.A.C. and more notably as Director-General of the B.B.C. Certainly he is far from being a Socialist. Yet he has given this scheme his blessing. He has said categorically that it is in accordance with the hard economic facts of experience in public services. There you have the views of a man who has actually directed B.O.A.C.

Then we have the views of the right hon. Member for Bromley and his party. He expressed them very forcibly this afternoon. He told us that in his view the policy proposed for the Government is disastrous. He told us that it was the end of all our high hopes for the development of civil aviation in this country. He made our blood run cold with the horror of it all. How different it would have been, he said, if we had had the Coalition Government White Paper. There was a scheme that would have been the salvation of British civil aviation. But what is the difference between the two schemes? I confess I cannot see any difference of substance between the scheme that was brought forward by the Coalition Government and the scheme in the White Paper, except possibly that the one would have been administered by Lord Swinton, presumably, and the other would be administered by Lord Winster. That does not make all the difference between salvation and disaster. It is perfectly true there are minor differences. The scheme favoured by the right hon. Gentleman, the member for Bromley, would have created a greater mono-ply than the one envisaged in the Government White Paper. There would have been not three companies but one operating the main air lines. There would have been more rigidity and less elasticity in the scheme favoured by the right hon. Gentleman than in this one. It it perfectly true that small subsidiary lines would have been allowed under the Swinton plan, and I rather regret that in the White Paper the freedom of the charter and taxi service has not been extended to the smaller companies, many of which have a record of success in the past which the great air lines could not claim. I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway on that point.

The right hon. Gentleman says there is all the difference between these two plans. The White Paper is nationalisation, he says, but what had we before? B.O.A.C. was owned by the State. It was a great single operating company and this nationalised service may have been the wash-out that the right hon. Gentleman says it was but this nationalised wash-out was established by a Conservative Minister in a Government dominated in this House by a Conservative majority. It was a policy which was agreed to by the Cabinet of which the right hon. Gentleman himself was a Member. His memory, if I may say so, is short in this matter, as short as the memory possibly of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is right hon. and hon. Members above the Gangway who started this policy. If it be a downward path that the Government are now taking, it is the Conservative Party who not only pointed the way but who started them on the slippery slope.

I am sure that it will be received with great clarification by the Members of the late Government opposite that they were Members of a Government which was dominated by the Tory Party.

There is no doubt about it, because the Government was so dominated. That was one of my great complaints against the late Government, that it was dominated to a large extent by Tory policy. But in my view it was the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who started the Government on the slippery slope, and it is really a case of Satan rebuking sin. I make no—

The hon. Lady has referred to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Does she not mean right hon. and hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway?

Yes, I certainly mean right hon. and hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, but I was indiscriminate when I was talking about Satan and sin as between the benches opposite and those above the Gangway. Although the right hon. Gentleman said that had the late Government continued in office they would have carried out this plan, it seems to me that this afternoon he has quite definitely thrown over the Swinton plan and gone back to something like unrestricted free enterprise. He has, as the Parliamentary Secretary stated, abandoned the Swinton baby on the doorstep. I have no doubt myself he has done so because the Government scheme is the dead spit of it. It is indeed its twin brother. The Opposition dislike it for that very reason. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley says: "Think of the possibilities of development under unrestricted private enterprise." I myself believe, as do my colleagues here, that there is a wide field for private enterprise in this country, but what has been the history of private enterprise in civil aviation? Let us be frank, it has not been a happy one; it has not been a fortunate one. The Cadman Committee, who made a perfectly impartial inquiry, gave it as their opinion that the civil aviation industry in this country before the war was ill-organised, lacking in initiative, and uncoordinated; in fact, it was thoroughly inefficient. Those were the pioneers to whom the right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway would like again to commit this tender plant about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. It is to them that he would like to return it to be nourished and nurtured and cared for.

In the past there is no doubt that in this industry we have had the worst of both worlds, the worst of unenterprising private enterprise and of rigid, unimaginative State interference. We want to be on our guard under this scheme against that unimaginative, rigid interference, which was a serious stumbling block before the war to civil aviation in so far as there was Government direction at all. I should like to quote one case amongst many with which hon. Gentlemen must be familiar. A survey was carried out as early as 1934 for air lines to South America. An application was put up to the Government. That was then the procedure. No action was taken. Year after year, there was procrastination, there were delays and no decisions. As a result, from 1934 to 1939, the British Government—then a Conservative Government—encouraged private enterprise in this country by paying German and French lines the equivalent of £94,000 a year to carry British airmails to South America. We have to be careful that the paralysing effect which State control can have will not be repeated in this new scheme. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and with hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway in this, that the mere change of ownership will not set this industry on its feet. Its success or its failure will depend entirely on the drive, the energy, the initiative, the imagination—and do let us have some imagination—

I am very glad to hear it, but I shall await results. Let us have some pioneering spirit in this new industry. Above all, do let us have, at last, technical skill and knowledge, and do let us permit the men who have the technical knowledge and the skill to have the authority to carry the weight, and in the direction of this industry, which they have never yet been allowed to do. I believe we want new men as well as new methods. It is not enough for the Minister to shuffle directors about from one company to another, in accordance with his statement in the House of Lords yesterday. It is not enough for the firm to change hands if the management is to be the same, so I hope we shall have new men in the direction of this industry.

There is one point I would like to make about airports. I am very glad indeed to hear that the hon. Gentleman has decided to designate Valley as one of the bad weather alternatives for the trans-atlantic service. He spoke of the wonderful service rendered by Prestwick during the war. I can assure him, and he must know himself from the records, that Valley has an equally remarkable record of service, and in some respects I think perhaps it has an even better one, particularly as far as meteorological conditions are concerned. Prestwick is also to be designated as a trans-oceanic port. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the choice of Prestwick as such would ensure that Scotland will be able to play its full part in civil aviation. As a sister Celt, I am very glad that Scotland should have its share—so long as it is a fair share, and so long as it is not at the expense of Wales. I am all for international airports so long as the Government do not start in Wales. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also ensure that Wales also is able to play her part by seeing to it there is a continental base established in South Wales. Representations have been made to the Parliamentary Secretary, and to the Minister, by Welsh Members from all parts of the Principality, that Llandow should be designated as a continental airport. I hope that he will be able to give us some decision on that, if not today, then in the very near future.

In civil aviation we have a new, developing industry with infinite possibilities, not only for commercial development and for opening up new highways, but for bringing the nations closer together and bringing them to a better understanding of each other. What part are we going to play in it all? If we are to play our part, we must see to it that the old, sorry tale of neglected opportunities has been told once and for all; that the inept policy of fumble, which has been adopted by successive Governments on civil aviation, is over. We have the best human material, as was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley. We have cause to be grateful that we have had that best of all human material in these last few years, but let us see that we make use of it in peacetime as well as in war. Let us see that we get the best technicians on the job. Let us see that we get the best aircraft on the job. The nation that could produce the Spitfire and the Lancaster can produce an aircraft that can be unbeaten throughout the world. Let us see to it that we get it. Let us see to it that Britain will again lead the world in this great pioneering adventure, as she has done in so many glorious adventures in the past.

5.27 p.m.

After many months waiting, I rise to make my maiden speech and, on this occasion, I ask that I may have the indulgence of hon. Members. I should say at the outset that I have spent the whole of my adult life, some 20 years, in military and civil aviation in many parts of the world. I was very pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary make reference to the sacrifices made during the war. We have, indeed, made very grave sacrifices, but in doing so we are now finding ourselves in a very difficult position. While we are very proud of those sacrifices, I believe the Americans must help us out. Reference has been made to the five "Constellations" which are to be purchased from the United States. I consider these aircraft are necessary, as an interim measure, to operate our airlines efficiently, but let the Americans, in turn for the sacrifices we have made, cut something off the cost of these aircraft.

I regret to say it is my considered opinion that British civil aviation is five years behind that of the United States, through nobody's fault, but only as a result of the war, and I cannot see that the Government's proposals will help us to catch up in the next few years. We have heard of the Brabazon Committee. What is the position in regard to the aircraft which are being built as prototypes, the specifications which have been drawn up by the Brabazon Committee? I would like the Government to tell us how many orders have been placed for these aircraft. I know one manufacturer at Reading who received an order for a prototype but has not yet received orders for the aircraft in bulk. If we are to catch up, we must allow the manufacturers to get on with tooling up and getting their jigs prepared so that we can produce more quickly. When aircraft, such as the Brabazon I being built at Bristol, the 130-tonner, are delivered, will they be up to date? Will they be comparable with the American counterparts at the time they are in production? I believe we must give our manufacturers a completely free hand—they know their job—and allow them to look right ahead for a period of, say, five years. We are leading the world at the present time in jet turbines. There is no question about it; it is admitted by the Americans. Let our designers design boldly without having to think about bombers being converted. Let us design years ahead, and we shall then lead the world.

I do not believe M.A.P. should have the control they have at present in peace- time. I know one manufacturer who, when drawing up the specification for his aircraft, found himself surrounded by 35 officials arguing as to how the aircraft should be designed. Small items were being discussed—whether the wash-basin should be on the right-hand or the left-hand side, and whether the door should open inwards or outwards. All these things are hindering production and we should allow manufacturers to co-operate with as little interference as possible. During the war De Havilland's designed the Mosquito. It was taken to the Air Ministry. They said they did not want it, but De Havilland's had sufficient confidence in the design that they went ahead with the aircraft and in a very short space of time the Air Ministry were asking for all they could get and they did get them from free enterprise. Civil aircraft cannot be perfected in one production, and I believe we are making a great mistake if we try by one specification and production, because a complicated and intricate aircraft cannot be expected to be perfect when built in, say, three or four years' time. The D.C.1., the forerunner of the Dakotas, was followed by the 2 and the 3 and now the Skymaster, which is indeed the follow-up of the D.C.1., which has taken 14 years to perfect.

I do not believe that nationalisation of our airlines is going to help us to catch up in the next three to five years. I would like to know what is going to be the cost of operating when compared with the United States. We must have rigid economy, and I believe the accounts should be kept on a commercial basis. Civil aviation requires all the initiative which it can get. It has the young men, and I hope that these young men will be given their opportunity, and not the retired air marshals, necessarily, but I believe that a large measure of control is necessary. We cannot have mushroom firms springing up all over the world. The Americans have their civil aviation Board which, before granting a licence, has to be satisfied that the firm is financially sound and that they will operate economically and that the profit will be a fair and reasonable one. When all those points are satisfied, then they will grant a licence. As was said by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), this industry is practically unborn, and it has suffered from every handicap it could possibly have. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he would like to be challenged about delays, and my point there is that there have been delays in not placing orders and, perhaps, in not placing orders for the "constellations" before now. I do not know when they were placed, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell the House. There is no doubt that the United States have the most efficient airlines in the world; we have to give that to our Allies. There are approximately 17 or 18 independent operators there, all dependable operators, and I should have thought that when we were suffering from the results of a long and gruelling war, it would have been a good thing to have copied our Allies. Competition is a good thing.

Nothing has been said in Command Paper 6712 about air freight services. We, as a small island operating all over the world, have a great opportunity because we have many bombers which could be converted for freight services, but not satisfactorily for passenger aircraft. Are the Government the best body to decide which are the best routes for freight services? I believe that men in the industry would themselves discover which are the best routes. I have the honour to represent the Macclesfield Division, and before the war there was great unemployment in both Macclesfield and Congleton. In the last few months I have been greatly concerned about the industries of my division. The traditional industry is that of silk, and it has occurred to me that, if we had a really good freight service, silk could be imported into this country in a matter of days, and when the raw silk had been made into finished goods they could be exported and we would have a larger turnover, which would help the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his finances. We would then give employment to our gallant pilots and engineers who have brought us through this war. I am very concerned about the lack of opportunity for exporting aircraft from this country. In the early 1930's I spent some five years in China trying to sell British aeroplanes, sometimes with success, against practically every other country in the world. It was a difficult task because both the Labour Government of 1931, and the Conservative Government, placed obstructions in my way. They brought an arms embargo against the Japanese and the Chinese—

—which did not hurt the Japanese, but which did our prestige in China a great deal of harm.

The Government must do all they can to encourage the sale of aircraft abroad. I am told that at the moment every sale has to be authorised by the Air Intelligence Branch of the Air Ministry. Manufacturers in this country are receiving cables from their agents in South America and other countries informing them that the Air Ministry have made sales. That is all wrong; we want to give our manufacturers a free hand and not to put obstructions in their way. I would like to give one word of advice to the manufacturers themselves. On one occasion, I think it was in 1933, in the early days of Autogyros I received an order for two from the Chinese Government. We had a specification for the colour scheme, which was to be red and cream, to appeal to our Chinese friends, but, when the aircraft were taken out of their crates they were found to be painted pale blue, which is the Chinese funeral colour, and no one would go near them. The Government should not ignore the manufacturers and their agents overseas. We must study the markets. We have a great opportunity.

The Americans, I am told, had some 2,000 Dakotas for sale a short time ago. The aircraft, I believe, when new is worth £25,000 or thereabouts. These aircraft have been offered to the Chinese Government for £3,000 and I have no doubt that, if the Chinese quibbled, they would get them for nothing, in order to push us out of the market. Nothing has been settled about compensation for goodwill, for prewar operators, except that nothing is to be paid. I do not think the word "goodwill" should be used at all; it is largely a matter of development. The people who started those airlines in the 1930's went into this form of business knowing they would lose money. They had to educate people to fly. Just before the war they were beginning to get a small return for their outlay. It is up to the Government, in fairness for those concerned, to give them fair and proper treatment, and it would be in their own interests to do so. I believe that two or three companies operating before the war never had a penny of a subsidy, and they certainly should be considered first. Finally, I ask the Government to allow manufacturers more freedom to go about their business. The country which operates the best air routes in the world will capture other markets in industry as the shipping companies did in the days of old. It is essential that British aviation should have complete freedom to spread its wings in all parts of the world.

5.40 p.m.

I have the privilege, for the first time in my short Parliamentary experience, of offering on behalf of hon. Members in this House our most sincere congratulations on the occasion of a maiden speech, that of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey). He is obviously well informed on this particular subject, and I imagine on many others as well. He addressed the House with an assurance which is pleasing, and he coupled with it a pleasing sense of humour. I am sure that every Member who heard his speech will congratulate him, and will look forward to hearing him again. I apologise for having interrupted him. Because of the manner in which his speech was being delivered I had forgotten that it was a maiden speech. I am sorry.

We have had a certain number of speeches—five, I think, up to now—which, to my mind, have to some extent, so far as the political aspect is concerned been somewhat disappointing. I do not like phrases such as "We must try to capture the same lustre in the air as our ships did at sea". I did not like the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) saying "A plague on both your idealogies". After all, any person who takes an interest in politics, and is an active politician, is surely, if he is honest, governed by ideological and political principles.

I am sure the hon. Member does not want to misrepresent me. I was speaking of these two particular ideologies. I was not saying that I have no political philosophy of my own.

I do not think that came out clearly in the noble Lady's speech.

I should like to start with a quotation from the Labour Party's policy, which will be received with acclamation by all Members on this side of the House, and, I hope, by Members on the other side. It is:

I say this without offence, I hope, because I know no one in the Ministry of Civil Aviation. But I fear that to some extent—which may be excusable—there is a tendency for that condition to persist, a tendency still to feel rather the small brother, a newly-born baby, as it were, and a tendency still to be dominated by the military mind of the Air Ministry. I should like to give one example to try to prove my point. As I understand it, the Ministry of Civil Aviation still depend upon the works and buildings department of the Air Ministry to build their hangars, maintenance sheds and generally to build various aerodromes which are in use by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Anybody who has been to Hurn or Heathrow will realise that development and building on the civil aviation side are very backward indeed. That is a complaint which is shared by many people outside this House. It arises from the fact that the Ministry have not had any works and buildings department, but are dependent upon that of the Air Ministry, who naturally put Air Ministry claims first.

I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should have a look at that matter because there follows from that something quite important. He threw out a challenge to Members on the other side of the House, and said that all civil aircraft available were in use; he meant something of that sort. I should like to inform the House of this fact, which again arises owing to the mentality of the Air Ministry, and the fact that during the war maintenance work to night bombers was done during the day time, and maintenance was done outside in the open air. When the Ministry of Civil Aviation, or the B.O.A.C., whichever operator it is, ask civilian engineers to do maintenance work on aircraft in unlighted and un-warmed maintenance sheds, or alternatively in the open air, sometimes at night as well, they refuse. I think the workers are perfectly entitled to refuse, and that B.O.A.C. and other monopolies will have a right to complain, because, in the White Paper, they are told to be model employers. Will my hon. Friend not consider setting up a Department of Works and Buildings, so that the maintenance on our civilian air liners can be done in ordinary reasonable comfort, not in the open air, in snow and fog? In the R.A.F. the maintenance crews were conscripted men who had to do as they were told. Times have changed, and that this state of affairs persists is to my mind some evidence of domination by the Air Ministry.

As I see this problem, the aim and the policy of those on this side of the House is international ownership and control of the airways of the world. I had the honour of advocating this, view on numerous occasions during the previous Parliament. I am glad to be able to say that it is now the policy of the Government, as indicated by my hon. Friend just now, though I do not think he paid enough attention to it; I am bound to speak my mind. It is my view that nationalisation is the short step, it must be a transitory step, on the way to international ownership and control. We must not regard it as permanent or eternal as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) said. In my view, and in the view of my hon. Friends here, it must be a short step towards the attainment in the ultimate direction of international ownership and control. As I have previously said more than once, there is nothing worse than every country having its chosen instrument, nationalised if you like, or free, all engaged in heavy competition. There would be a tremendous cut-throat competition. It would be no use talking about non-subsidisation, even if subsidies could not be open. Countries would join in the competition as soon as they felt able to compete. Therefore, I say that this stage of nationalisation must be a very short one and they must, to use the famous phrase of bomber pilots, press on with their policy of international ownership and control. They will not be satisfied with a lot of bilateral agreements with various countries such as my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech.

With regard to ownership and control in the biggest possible number of countries, we may not be able to have world authority right away, because, I agree, there are possibly certain countries which will not play yet. The Ministry must have more information than I have about this, but I am perfectly certain that they must get on with it. They must not be deflected by the risk of failure. Nothing succeeds like success, but success never starts if you wait for it to come your way. I say frankly, and I am speaking for a number of Members on this side of the House, that I hope that they do press on. There are representatives of 51 nations in London at the present time—

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he tell the House, of the countries anxious to join in the international scheme?

Australia, New Zealand, France, this country, the Colonial Empire, and also India.

The hon. and gallant Member is not up to date. I do therefore put to my hon. Friend, and to his noble Friend, and the Government as a whole, that we will not be satisfied to rest almost for years, if you like, on nationalisation. They must press on to international ownership and control, and although you may not be able to go the whole hog to start with, I say "go as far as you can and then we shall be pleased."—[ Interruption. ] I have not too much time at my disposal and I am not going to give way. Now, we come to the nationalisation scheme as disclosed in the White Paper. I cannot for the life of me see the argument for three corporations. This, to my mind, follows so closely on the Swinton plan that it may be that half brother which was mentioned. What can be the possible justification? First, let me say at this stage that, so far as the flight to South America the other day was concerned, there was duplication of service all the way through as far as Bathurst. B.O.A.C. had its servicing stations, and British South American Airways are proposing to charge different, fares from those which B.O.A.C. are charging at the present time. There is duplication and there is no logic in a proposal for dividing the Atlantic into two halves.

On that precise point, I ought to say there was no duplication, because we arranged for the B.O.A.C. facilities to be made available.

I am very much obliged for that information. It may be, so far as oiling is concerned, and so on, but quite obviously B.O.A.C. run as far as Bathurst and so do South American Airways. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President, in one of his many speeches in Canada did say that he could not possibly see any arguments for having a hundred corporations running civil airlines. I think, if he is logical, he cannot argue in favour of having three. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman is not here at present but I cannot see the object of having three. What is the position? I say without being unkind, that this is following too closely to the old Swinton plan.

What about this South American Airways? They were originally floated in January, 1944, and called British Latin American Airlines, Limited, with a capital of 10,000 £I shares, and the subscribers were Lord Essendon, Lord Vestey, Mr. W. H. Davies and Sir P. Halain, so far as I can read the signature. I went down to Bush House for that. All these gentlemen describe themselves as shipowners. In February, 1944, Mr. C. C. Barber, who is a director of British South American Airlines joined—he is the director and general manager of the Royal Mail—along with Mr. J. W. Booth, chairman of the Booth Steamship Company, Mr. W. H. Davies, the managing director of the Pacific Steam Navigation Company, Mr. L. Dewey, director of the Blue Star, Mr. P. G. M. Mitchell, managing director of the Royal Mail, and Mr. Philip Runciman, director of Lamport and Holt. The share capital was divided, 3,800 to the Royal Mail, 1,900 to the Blue Star, 1,900 to the Pacific Steam Navigation Company, and 500 to the Booth Steamship Company.

There was a General Election, with the declaration of the poll on 25th July, 1945, and on 2nd August, 1945, exactly a week later, this company increased its capital from £10,000 to £1,000,000—after we had won the Election. I say quite frankly that some reasonable explanation should be given for that. They changed their name to British South American Airways, Limited, and on 16th November after the Noble Lord had made his speech in another place, we had three more directors, Mr. Trott, of Blue Star, Mr. Molineux, of Pacific Steam Navigation Company, and Mr. Mercer, of Lamport and Holt. Only 40,000 shares have been paid for in cash. They have their buildings in 19, Grafton Street, Piccadilly.

When they are on the verge of their demise, Air Vice-Marshal Bennett makes an announcement, which is reported in "The Times," that they own 12 Lancastrians. He is also one of the directors although I do not. think he is a shipping director. Quite frankly, I do not like that very much. Although Mr. Booth may have resigned his directorship of the shipping company, I say compensation has been looked for very quickly. I think a Lancastrian used to cost about £50,000. Well, they have bought 12 and I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Aircraft Production lent them on the "dollar down and chase me" basis. With £40,000 capital you cannot really buy £600,000 worth of aircraft, let alone housing people, paying directors and so on. I would like to know whether the 12 Lancastrians are on the "dollar down and chase me" basis.

What are they saying? Although "goodwill" may be a phrase we do not like, some claim may be made to this. My hon. Friend made a statement in which he said the Starlight flight to South America was undertaken on behalf of the Government. Are they going to pay for that? Why should this enterprise be undertaken privately on behalf of the Government? After all, surely they can stand on their own feet. That is the great argument of the gentlemen opposite. They did not need to have their first flight subsidised by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I am very anxious to have answers to this question, as to why British South American Airways should be so full of these people. I do hope that there is going to be an explanation of that, because it is worrying some people.

What kind of commitments have they got? Are we to find that long-term contracts have been made with shipping and handling agents all the way down the routes to Rio, which will have to be continued or which can only be broken by payment of compensation? I think these are things to which the Lord President should give the House a reply. Already, I understand that this particular line is making contracts with some handling agents in Lisbon, and I see that, in a statement made by Air Vice-Marshal Bennett and printed in "The Times" of 15th January, the Vice-Marshal, on his arrival at Heathrow, said:

The next thing I come to is this third corporation. I suppose B.O.A.C. has been rather pregnant with directors of the new British Airways Corporation. We had an announcement yesterday in another place about what had happened in the matter of appointing directors. As I understand it, Major Thornton, who has been appointed to the Board of B.O.A.C., is or was a director of the Blue Funnel Line, and Mr. C. W. Jones, aged 65, has Liverpool shipping interests. Sir Harold Hartley, the Chairman of the new corporation, resigned the Vice-Presidency of the L.M. & S. Railway and other interests, and is coming to be the Chairman of the European Corporation. Then we come to Major McCrindle, ex-managing director of British Airways, and Mr. d'Erlanger, who did a very good job of work during the war and was also a director of British Airways. Both are associates of a very respected former Member of this House now Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and are connected with Whitehall Securities. I do not like it very much. If I am right, B.O.A.C., compared to them, looks to me like Snow White.

I want to read some extracts showing the policy which this Government are going to carry out. Their statement of policy says: I am quite sure that hon. Members want to know the basis of the policy to which the Government is committed. I quote again:

On a point of Order. Could we have the documents which the hon. Member is quoting laid on the Table so that all hon. Members may read them?

The hon. and gallant Member will get a copy of HANSARD on his breakfast table tomorrow. I continue the. quotation:

"The Labour Party shares the view of the Australian and New Zealand Governments that such a system of international ownership and control of air trunk routes would be far preferable to any exclusively British Commonwealth Air Service functioning as part of a patchwork of separate services. We say this for strong reasons of national as well as international interests; we believe that this country and the Commonwealth as a whole would be more economically served, and better protected against economic Imperialism, by World Airways than by a British Commonwealth Airways."

I feel very sincerely and strongly about this matter. I think, as I said, this is a touchstone. We now have a new Government with a strong majority in this House and we have tremendous influence through the Colonial Secretary, the Dominions Office and the India Office and in our relations with other countries, so that we can set up a tremendous moral leadership of the world in this matter. Although some hon. Members seem to think that the ordinary public are not concerned, they know jolly well the dangers involved in the development of civil aviation on the wrong lines. I beg the Government to realise that this is a policy of vital importance. I hope they will not be deterred by any reason at all from calling the biggest possible international conference for the purpose of setting up International Airways Limited, with the object of running air services as far across the world as we possibly can.

6.9 p.m.

In asking for the indulgence of the House for my maiden speech, I am very conscious of the wisdom in these words of Plutarch's:

We have only to look across the Atlantic to see an incomparable system of airlines built up, developed and expanded by free enterprise in a perfectly orderly way. I should be the first to agree that the expansion of our air transport must be controlled in some way, just as the American airlines are controlled by the Civil Aeronautics Board. We should undoubtedly require a similar controlling body in this country among whose functions would be licensing and the consideration of claims of any new operators who wished to enter the field. But the Government appear to believe that the choice lies only between State monopoly and disorder. I cannot subscribe to that view. We may well feel that our youngest and most promising child has reached the age when it needs a good governess to guide its future progress, but that is no reason for locking it up in a State institution. Many hon. Members who have already spoken have pointed out that, perhaps, more than any other national activity, British aviation requires the fullest possible co-operation and assistance from everyone with experience, and particularly from people with plenty of new ideas. But by discarding the railway air services, the Government are not only throwing away some 13 valuable years of accumulated experience of air transport, but are ignoring the many obvious advantages of a close association between air lines and railways. In closing the door to private operators the Government are cutting off aviation completely from an endless source of enthusiasm and initiative. In my view, without this stream of fresh water to feed the reservoir it can only become stagnant and unhealthy.

We are told that even the airfields required for the scheduled air services are to be acquired and managed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Three reasons are given for this decision and I would like, briefly, to examine each of them because I believe that all of them are fundamentally unsound. The first is that such airfields require heavy capital and maintenance expenditure. But have any of the municipal authorities or private owners been consulted to find whether they are able and willing to produce the required standard, taking into account the revenue they would derive from landing fees? If it were found that a certain amount of State aid was necessary—perhaps only temporarily—in some cases, would it not be considerably cheaper than the vast expense of acquiring and running all the airfields? Surely, the right answer is to give them a chance over a reasonable period of time and see which ones are able to be self-supporting and which are not. It would then be possible to compare the cost of subsidising the unsuccessful ones with the cost of complete public ownership. The second reason is that many municipal- and privately-owned airfields have been requisitioned during the war and developed at public expense, and that to acquire them would simplify the problem of derequisitioning. But if I rent a house on a long lease and make certain improve- ments to it at my own expense, is it so difficult to hand it back to the owner at the end of the lease that I have to buy the house? And, again, have the municipal authorities been approached to sec whether they would be willing to buy those assets from the State?

The third reason is that the State already undertakes the provision of meteorological, radio and control services, and that in the changed circumstances, it is a natural development of this policy that the State should own the airfields. But why is it a natural development? Trinity House has provided navigational aids for shipping since 1514 when it was granted its first charter by Henry VIII. I am entirely in favour of an aeronautical Trinity House, but I cannot see why the State should own the airfields. And how are those airfields which escape public ownership to be affected? Is the private pilot to be denied these facilities because he operates from a free airfield? I would like to know, too, what is meant by" these changed circumstances." Could it, perhaps, be the General Election or even the municipal elections? If so, I venture to suggest that those municipal authorities which are now predominantly Socialist will be no better pleased by the loss of their airfields than those predominantly Conservative. And where is the large trained staff of officials who are to take over these airfields, and run them without delay?

In the 17 years that I have been flying, I have known many of the pioneers of British aviation. To a certain extent I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) that their efforts were not always coordinated, but the majority of them were actuated not by motives of greed for riches or power, but by a sincere love of flying, a great pride in their skill, and a genuine desire to see their country leading the world in the air. Years of hard work have been put in by these prewar operators. New routes have been patiently worked up wherever the public can best be served, in spite, often, of considerable initial losses. Their reward is to be kicked out and the door slammed in their faces. These men whose spirit did so much to put British aviation on the map are told, not only that they can take no further part in British air transport, but that there is no case whatever for the payment of compensation for development expenses, although they are being put completely out of businss. Is that the way to get our airlines started quickly? Is that the way to secure the advantages of flexibility and initiative, which even His Majesty's Government agree are so necessary?

It is certain that, however many public corporations we may establish, there can never be either flexibility or initiative in what amounts to one State owned monopoly whose management, finances, and operational policy are controlled by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. On the contrary, it can only be the breeding ground of yes-men, over-caution, extravagances and false economies. An example of that is" Fido" at Heathrow, on which a lot of money has been spent and which has now been stopped. This is not in the best interests of the nation. It is the surest way to undo all the great work which has been done by the pioneers and to push British aviation further and further off the map. But allow free enterprise a stake in the future of air transport. Prevent inbreeding by the continual infusion of new blood and new ideas backed by new capital; then we shall have the energy and enthusiasm we need so badly if we are to take our rightful place at the head of the world's airways.

6.22 p.m.

It is a great pleasure and an honour to be able to congratulate the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward) on his maiden speech. He has spoken in a well-informed and pleasing manner. He speaks from considerable experience of flying, which is, of course, the basis of the matter which we are now discussing, although occasionally one is inclined to forget that, I am sure other hon. Members on this side of the House agree and I hope we shall hear him again in the not too distant future.

I do not propose to keep the House long, because so many points of a constructive nature have been covered so far by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, all of which, I am sure, have been noted by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I did notice, however, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) introduced the question, nationalisation of free enterprise?—which I thought was a very great pity, because in this question of civil aviation I thought we might have avoided that. It appears that hon. Members apposite were satisfied with the Coalition White Paper, but not with this White Paper. In other words, they were perfectly satisfied, provided the railways and shipping interests were represented in civil aviation. Although I have studied the question closely, I have been unable to understand why they thought such a useful contribution would be made to aviation by railway and shipping officials and executives. I see that the chairman or vice-chairman of the L.M.S. is to be brought into one of these new corporations. I know he is a most able man, but I cannot see, even in that particular instance, what he will bring into this sphere, which is pre-eminently one of youth.

The railways in the past have made tremendous contributions to the welfare of this country and to its progress, but I have not seen that they have made any particularly useful contribution as regards speed. It still takes 55 minutes to travel 16 miles from London on certain lines, and that was exactly the same speed 31 years ago. Therefore, I cannot see that they should be brought into aviation. Surely, in their own particular sphere the railway interests have much to do, and the same applies to shipping. As far as private enterprise is concerned in aviation, is private enterprise to take over meteorological, wireless and radio services? The hon. Gentleman has suggested that it is analogous to Trinity House, but is it? This chain of communications and aids will not be only in this country. They are to be throughout the world, as they must be, and we must have agreements with other nations. Private enterprise cannot possibly undertake such agreements as we shall require if civil aviation is to be successful. Therefore, private enterprise would do nothing more nor less than just" cash in." It is not in the interests of the future of aviation that that should be done. We shall have in the future to consider developments, including such things as bases for flying boats, artificial lakes and airline cities, rocket planes and even atomic energy. Those are not matters for private enterprise. Only by State development can that be a success.

As far as the White Paper is concerned, I do not quarrel with this question of three corporations. I am not sure that I would not just as soon see four corporations. I think we are, perhaps, debating something which does not matter. We must have some head, whether it is called a corporation, or whatever we like to call it. Provided it does not contain a swollen staff and we have men at the top who understand aviation, I do not think it matters whether we call it a corporation or not. In the past there has been criticism of the selection of people in these positions, particularly in B.O.A.C. The late Director-General has been rather severely criticised in this House on that score, although I take the view that General Critchley has done some very fine work for civil aviation and for this country, in that he has put a virile spirit into B.O.A.C. Nevertheless, he suffered in one respect, and that was that there was no organisation for the selection of personnel.

I hope the noble Lord, the Parliamentary Secretary and this House will consider the introduction of measures to ensure that in aviation we have people who understand flying. In the new selections that have recently been promulgated there is no question about the ability of the people, but I cannot see that they have any particular flying experience. It seems that with three or four corporations, as there must be—because I am certain if we had three there must be a fourth—there should be a central authority over them. I know that that suggestion sounds like just another staff, but that is" purely a matter of organisation. Are these three corporations to come directly under the Minister of Civil Aviation? If so, they are coming under civil servants. I am not saying that in any derogatory sense, but we do want our flying corporations under flying people. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord and the Parliamentary Secretary to consider that question. In fact, I did ask the noble Lord himself to ensure that there would be a controlling authority but, for some reason, he has not done so, and I cannot understand it.

In another place, this White Paper has been very severely criticised. It has been criticised also by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and on this side of the House. I could criticise it. I am sure the Noble Lord himself and his Parliamentary Secretary could find fault with it, but I do not think we are getting anywhere if that is all we do. Surely, it is a fundamentally sound principle that civil aviation in this country should belong to the country and to the people. Why should it be put out to tender? We did not put the war, nor did we put the Royal Air Force out to tender. Who can say it is wrong for the Government, and for the nation, to run their civil air lines? Nobody can say that it can be done better by private enterprise.

We have a lot of examples from America which I would rather forget at the present moment. I am not subscribing to the view that civil aviation in this country is behind any other country in the world at the moment. It seems to me that certain right hon. Members are judging civil aviation purely on the question of aircraft. It is agreed we are behind in aircraft, but that is not the only thing that makes civil aviation. In this country we have much longer routes and a much better organisation than in America or any other country so far as civil aviation is concerned. It is sometimes forgotten by Americans and right hon. Members opposite that between here and Australia, and even America and Bermuda, and across the South Atlantic, British bases have been set up and used by Americans for the last six years. We have an organisation of which to be proud, and we ought not to talk about not having civil aviation in this country. We want the aircraft.

I am very pleased to see the Minister of Aircraft Production here, because I feel sure he will realise this is a matter which concerns him as much as anybody in the Government. The last time I asked a question on the number of civil aircraft under construction, I received the disturbing news that it was 190; it was only a month or two ago. I hope that is wrong. Otherwise, it means the whole of or aircraft industry must be building, presumably, bomber or fighter aircraft, which, if we have another war—which God forbid—will surely be quite out of date by then. I ask the Minister of Aircraft Production to be bold in this matter and not to wait too long before getting the most modern and satisfactory types. British aircraft is always good and can always be used. We do not want particularly modern aircraft for small hauls, and not all our flying is oceanic or trans-Atlantic. Will the aircraft industry go ahead and build the aircraft we want? I feel that we should go ahead and have nationalised civil aviation, and I hope, eventually, internationalised civil aviation. The people of this country have shared in the triumphs and the tragedies of the air. I would like to see them share in, and have a stake in the future of the air, and not always be relegated into the background when it comes to something new, something worthwhile like civil aviation by having it handed over to big concerns like the shipping and railway companies.

6.34 p.m.

The Government are asking the House and the country to welcome their proposals for the socialising of civil aviation. While those who support His Majesty's Government will, no doubt, loyally go into the Lobby and record their votes tonight, I venture to say this is a very sad day for the future" of British civil aviation. I believe this proposal of the Government will receive a welcome, but unfortunately it will receive a welcome from our competitors abroad. I should like to recapitulate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) said when he mentioned that this is the first nationalisation proposal which has a direct impact on our export position. The other Government proposals for nationalising domestic concerns do not affect the export position so much as this is bound to do. For a moment, I would like to bring before the hon. Members of the House one or two aspects of this scheme for socialising the air—alas, socialising it only so far as British air is concerned. Firstly, we are going to have three grand bodies to operate our air transport services all over the world. Whatever the Government or the Parliamentary Secretary may say, it is a fact that these corporations have to start afresh in every aspect of transport organisation. The Government have cast aside the terrific advantage which they would have gained by co-operation with our shipping and railway interests. The Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon said he hoped to receive co-operation from the shipping interests, but he gave us no detailed information about that. All we have heard so far is that the Government-owned aircraft corporations have secured from a shipping company the services of one gentleman.

There has been correspondence on the subject, and undertakings have been given and entered into on this matter on a normal commercial basis.

All the Minister can tell the House is that he has had correspondence. Each and all of us have had correspondence with Government Departments but we cannot say it has been satisfactory. I will willingly give way if the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us more.

Have they been laid on the Table of the House?

The House will be able to form its own opinion of the statement which the Parliamentary Secretary has just made. I think the Government—even the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary—will agree that the shipping and railway interests can modestly claim to know a little more about transportation than they do at the moment. Furthermore, it seems to me rather difficult to understand how the Government can hope to secure very much co-operation from the shipping and railway interests when they are entering into direct competition with them. It does not seem to me it would possibly work.

There are one or two detailed suggestions in the White Paper to which I will refer. There is a very important body of people which has been completely ignored, namely, the would-be passengers, or those who would seek to send their freight by air. We would like to know something more about fares and the freight rate-fixing machinery. The Parliamentary Secretary did say some machinery was to be set up. We would like to know whether that machinery is to be judicial or is only to advise the Minister, who will be judge, prosecutor and jury. Are the aircraft to be used, only to be ordered by the Minister for civil aviation, or are manufacturers to have some opportunity of submitting designs of what they consider to be the best type of aircraft. Coming to the personnel aspect, the directors of these corporations are to be appointed by the Government—some of them have been—and can, presumably, be dismissed by the Government. Yesterday in another place the Minister announced the new directorate of British Overseas Airways. I do not understand why that announcement was made in another place. Surely the supporters here of right hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot give their unqualified approval to some of those appointments. The Socialist Government have had to seek the services of a Noble Lord, who was a distinguished Member of this House and who is now a director of the National Provincial Bank, inviting him to go on the board of that Socialist company.

It shows how necessary it is to come here. What better condemnation could there be of the existing top-heaviness of B.O.A.C. and its kindred organisations than the recent resignation of General Critchley, the director general? If it is found that one organisation is top heavy, what is it going to be like with this triumvirate?

With regard to personnel, are all our airport managers, captains of aircraft, aircrews and maintenance staff to be turned into civil servants, and will they be any more effective if they are? I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley who mentioned the position of a person employed by the railway air services and other companies. I would like to know what the Socialist Government is going to do to protect them. Are they to be taken into the new organisation or are they to be cast aside as part of the price we are paying for Socialism?

I am glad to hear it. The Parliamentary Secretary paid a generous tribute to the great airport at Heathrow, and I think we all hope and believe that it will be the finest airport in the world. It is, however, very interesting to note that that airport is being built and equipped today by private contrac- tors. The Socialist Government are going to say to the municipal authorities who own their own airports," You have been very good in the past, you have built this lovely airport and provided the amenities, but now in 1946, six months after we have come into office, it is very naughty of you to own that airport, and it is to be taken away from you." Will Socialist councils owning their own airports be very pleased with that proposal? I very much doubt it.

I want to say a word now on finance. I think it is of vital importance that the accounts of these aircraft operating companies should be kept separately and should be published as are the accounts of any commercial organisation. I can see no reason why the Government should resist that, and I hope that, later on, the Lord President of the Council will be able to give us an assurance that these aviation corporations will do nothing about which the Government will not be prepared to face the full light of publicity and, if necessary, of questioning in this House. I would like to ask the Government whether they can give us any idea at all of the total finances which they anticipate will be involved in the creation of these corporations, for, after all, we here are the custodians of public money, and public money alone is to be used for setting them up. I think the House is entitled to some idea of the extent to which the taxpayer will be involved.

I will not go over again the suggestion that was made about following the American system of a licensing authority, but I do hope that this Government, when granting a monopoly—a word from which they so often shrink in their speeches—will note that by doing so they are dealing a very effective death-blow at the development of our aviation. I hope that all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who will go into the Lobby tonight and vote for this doctrinaire socialisation of a new industry will consider whether they are doing the right thing in handing over what could be a great adjunct to Empire development and to our export trade to the Socialist Government, or whether they had not better give a vote to preserve its enterprise and the great work it has done.

6.45 p.m.

While welcoming this opportunity to make A brief contribution to the Debate, I feel some apprehension at addressing the House for the first time and, as is customary, I crave the usual indulgence. I would like to refer to the first paragraph of the White Paper, which I welcome. It has not gone the whole way, it has not gone as far as many of us would have liked it to go, nevertheless, it is welcome. I would refer in particular to the sentence which says:

There has been a considerable amount of criticism of the policy of public ownership. We have been criticised for doing what we said we would do, and what the nation gave us a mandate to do on 5th July. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to have forgotten that on 5th July, as a result of the election literature, addresses, speeches, and Party pamphlets which had been placed before the electorate, the country knew well what they were voting for, and they gave us a mandate for the nationalisation of civil aviation. But I too am concerned that there are certain dangers in nationalising civil aviation, in that mistakes may be made in the selection of boards and executives. Frankly, I do not feel happy that we have decided to include ex-shipping magnates, railway magnates and bankers on the boards to control this very young and new industry. I hope the Government will think again, because it has never been a good policy to put a grocer to do a plumber's job.

Apart from the boards themselves, I would like to appeal to the Minister to take great care, and to advise the boards to take great care, in the selection of the personnel who are to staff the corporations. Air crews, administrative staffs and maintenance staffs will have to be selected. There is a great wealth of experience in this country, as great as in any other country in the world and it is from that wealth that we must draw. It is not unnatural that I should be making a plea for the claim of the personnel of the R.A.F., who are now being demobilised. I hope the corporations will look in that direction when it comes to the time completely to staff these new corporations, but it is important that the conditions and terms of service should be stated now. We have noted today with pleasure—at least, to me it was a pleasure—that the pay for captains of air crews is a fair one. I hope that that fair basis will be continued, because nothing contributes more to the success of any undertaking than the fact that the people who are employed in that undertaking are working in happy circumstances. I also appeal to the Ministry to consider those men who have been seconded from the Royal Air Force, to give them a square deal, and see their claims are fairly heard.

In my opinion, the public of this country are not yet sufficiently air-minded. It is largely the result of the inactivity or—shall I say?—the misdirected activity of previous Governments; because it has been considered that air travel and flying is only of interest to the, at least, relatively well off or middle class people who can afford to pay the high charges to which we have been accustomed. That is a completely wrong conception because flying can be, and ought to be, made to come within the means of all our people. Again, the misconception often quoted by the man in the street to whom we speak is that air travel is not safe. That is another complete misunderstanding of the true position. Air travel can be made as safe, and, in fact, is as safe, as any other form of transport, including the railways; and it should be part of the Ministry's job to ensure that it is kept safe.

Certain things can be done, and one is pleased to note from the White Paper that these things are being done. The meteorological aids experienced in the war and the radar and wireless aids can be used. I would urge the Minister to consider setting up at every aerodrome a beam approach. I would mention one point very often forgotten. A man to whom in the Royal Air Force we referred as the "plumber," the man who does the maintenance job, who inspects the aircraft before it takes off, whose responsibility it is to see that the aircraft is airworthy—this man must be given, not only good rates of pay and conditions, but representation at every level in the administrative set-up of the new corporations. Aircrews, engineers, administrative staffs alike must feel that the corporation is their corporation in which they have an interest; and when we can be assured of that interest from all sections of the employees working in the industry, we are going a very long way to ensure that success is achieved.

We are, whether the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite like it or not, approaching a new era. At least three of the five continents of the world are approaching the period when there will be a completely new sense of values. At one time civil aviation, like all other industries in this country, and, in fact, in most parts of the world, was measured by whether it was a good investment; whether it paid a dividend or whether it did not. But a complete change is taking place; and the measure from now on in this country, without any shadow of doubt, will be: Is this an efficient service; is it as efficient as it can be made; and, finally, are we quite sure we are giving all the people that to which they are entitled?

6.55 p.m.

I do not suppose that in the experience of Members of this House there has ever been quite such a classic case of the intention by the gods to destroy as in this madness of the Government with regard to nationalisation in this case. I suppose that possibly the Government feel themselves in a somewhat difficult position. They know nationalisation has served the Party well.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Maiden speech."] Often on the platform when I have made a speech and finished it and the chairman has looked around diffidently and wondered why no one has said anything about him, I have jumped up in confusion and rectified that unfortunate disaster. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Leicester (Flying-Officer Bowden) will absolve me from any discourtesy in not congratulating him very warmly on behalf, not only of myself, but of all those who have had the privilege of listening to him. I know what a job it is to make a maiden speech. A speech is somewhat of a job even to one who is an old hand at speaking. If he will give us the pleasure of listening to him again he can look forward to a considerate and welcome hearing. Having cleared my conscience, I should like just to go back to the point where I left off. I am not going to deal with it at any great length because there are far more grave issues to deal with than this question of whether the air lines of our country at home or abroad are nationalised or not.

This is the greatest adventure on which the Government are embarking. It is the whole future of our country which is at stake. It has many possibilities of danger and many elements of hope, but if the Government really are determined to embark on this State monopoly they are taking a risk which may well prove a disaster to all their high hopes and to our faith in the future of our country. I am not going to detain the House long because I know there are many speakers who want to take part. Nationalisation has undoubtedly served the Party opposite well. It was a word upon which their Party was largely built. They felt it was a good slogan to pronounce, easy to memorise. The only trouble about it was that they could not work it, and this is a thing they have not yet found out, and I deeply regret they started on this wonderful new enterprise which was just emerging from the chrysalis stage, and finding its wings of flight for the conquest of the air. To take a few examples that have been used before, there is our old friend the national telephone service, which raises it charges to the consumer every time it sees the danger of a deficit, whilst the consumer is shifting from one foot to another dialing "Trunk" or "Toll" or "O" without any hope of response and wasting everything but his voice. Then there is nationalisation of the Bank of England, that schoolboy frolic we allowed to pass because we realised it was done from a youthful exuberance at their unexpected victory. We did take slightly more notice when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. H. Morrison) suddenly confronted us with a whole series of nationalisation proposals, We then had to sit up and take notice, and so we had our Vote of Censure. But now we have come to this particularly stupid venture. I wonder whether it would not have been better, for instance, if they had embarked on a nationalisation scheme to which they are already committed, such as that of the coal industry. Not that I have any great confidence in the success of that scheme; but, at any rate, there is a feeling in the country that, if the Minister of Fuel and Power can produce more coal, cheaper coal and a more contented industry, with eager people willing to work it, there would be some hope, if not confidence, in the future of other nationalisation projects.

I wonder how many Members are in the same position as I am of having in their constituencies a concrete example of this public ownership to which we are going to hand over our civil aviation. I have one in a Royal Ordnance factory owned by the State. I hope that it is going to be permanent, because it gives employment, at no great effort to themselves, to some hundreds of my constituents; but I have never noticed, in going round that factory, any great exhilaration on the faces of the workers, or any great pride of possession. In fact, their expression was much the same as that of the mineworkers nearby or the Prestwick aircraft workers, where, no doubt, the owners are happily engaged in grinding the faces of their wage slaves. What I would like to impress upon the Minister is, that in civil aviation we are not dealing with an old-established industry, which will go almost on its own volition no matter how it is interfered with by the Government. Here we are dealing with something that has just emerged from the chrysalis stage.

The White Paper was supposed to describe, explain and to show justification for the policy. But what do we find? We find nothing but a muddle and a medley of conflicting ideas, and ideals, strangely reminiscent of the coldly received Swinton plan—a plan which was received as coldly in this House as it was in the country before it was handsomely amended the day before the House adjourned for the General Election. The only differences which I can see between the Swinton plan and the present proposals in the White Paper are three. One is, that in the White Paper Scotland is mentioned. It was not mentioned in the Swinton plan. The second is, that there is no compensation to be given, as was mentioned by one speaker above the gangway, for development expenses. The third is, that the three chosen instruments of Lord Swinton, instead of being independent, are subject to the unimaginative, bureaucratic whims of Whitehall. Some hon. Members may say that these steps go forward; that there is progress beyond what Lord Swinton conceived. I believe that these are three additional blots on the Swinton plan, in which I have already found many. About Scotland, for instance, we find on page 6 it says that Prestwick will be designated as an airport available—only available, mark youx2014;for international use. So great was the fear created in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary from the expressions of opinion of Scottish Members that he has gone far beyond the White Paper in his statement to-day. But the White Paper remains the policy on which we are working and arguing this Debate. Here we have this great airport with a reputation unsullied for efficiency, for accidents, for fog, whose creators after ten years of imagination, courage, effort, and work, and also financial expenditure, have built up the finest airport in Britain; and yet they now receive no compensation whatsoever and no acknowledgment even in the White Paper for their magnificent achievements.

The White Paper gives another humiliating sop to Scotland. It says that opportunities will be provided for Scotland to play its part in regard to internal and external services. What a magnanimous gesture. But it is just not good enough for Scotland. We will not be content with the opportunity of picking up a few crumbs from the poor man's table—and, believe me, it is going to be a very poor man's table for civil aviation in Britain. We refuse to be bound by this great State monopoly. We refuse to submit ourselves to the stranglehold of State control. That is going to be the proposition put forward in this Debate tonight, because Scotland made up its mind long ago that the brains, energy, skill and craftsmanship which sent Scottish ships sailing over the seven seas, still undiminished, untarnished, will insist on sending Scottish aircraft over the skies above those seven seas.

I only want to know the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument. Is it his argument that he wants a separate economic and commercial system standing on its own feet for Scotland alone, or does he only want that in respect of aircraft, and want it cut off economically from Great Britain and the rest of the world? Is it Scottish economic isolation that he is advocating?

I am only too willing to enlighten the right hon. Gentleman. He has certainly not been studying the changes in Scottish opinion in the immediate past. He is doing more to drive the democratic Members of this House of all parties into the Scottish nationalist camp by this White Paper than by any other enterprise which the Government have embarked on since they got into power six months ago. We realise in Scotland, and I realise here, that the Government have their majority and can force through their scheme tonight, but I have been, since I first read the White Paper, seeking some way by which the determination of the Government can be reconciled with the demands of Scotland. There are two. I would like the right hon. Gentleman's attention because it is an answer to part of the question which he asked. There are two ways in which the determination of the Government and the demands of Scotland can be met. They were mentioned in Edinburgh last week. They are by setting up two public utility corporations, one to administer the great international airport at Prestwick, and the other to administer the air services which should be based on Prestwick. We realise that there is a great future for Scottish initiative in this matter. We are too far away from London to force our views on London as yet, but we are determined to do so, even though it means taking more power to ourselves in Scotland, and we may have to do so if Scottish aviation is to survive. I do not like State control anyway, and I would prefer to see this great new enterprise, demanding as it does the highest qualities of spiritual, moral and physical courage, free. I would like to see it free to widen its own vision, to expand its wings, to express its spirit, and free to show a competing world the greatness of Britain.

I was looking over the records of the Civil Aeronautical Board in America which show what could be done if we had a similar institution in this country. The Civil Aeronautical Board in America regulates routes, charges, administers the licensing system and generally runs what is probably regarded by the world as the best network of civil aviation services throughout America. I ask the Government, while there is still time, not to judge their future on those doctrinaire policies, but to take advantage of the example which lies across the Atlantic, and to set up a civil aeronautics board that will be free from the strait jacket of Whitehall.

One final word: As I said on a previous occasion, I do not want to upset the Government or to threaten them too hard. I will try to be more objective, and simply say that, if they pursue this madness, they are obviously heaping up a grievous store of trouble for themselves. What is more important than that, they are creating a stagnant future for civil aviation both in Scotland and in Great Britain.

7.11 p.m.

When I read this White Paper, for the first time, some weeks ago, I must say I was not greatly inspired by it, but when I heard the explanation of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary I felt a great deal better. When, after that, I listened to the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) I must say that I suffered great distress. It is a matter of great distress for a comparatively new Member to come down to this House and listen to a speech from a right hon. Gentleman occupying a responsible position on the Front Bench opposite, dealing with this vitally important and very serious matter in a spirit which I can only describe as one of levity.

The hon. Gentleman has referred to me. Perhaps I may remind a comparatively new Member to this House that in order to be effective, it is not necessary to be pompous.

I am much obliged for that interjection because it introduces my next remark. The levity of the right hon. Gentleman's manner was only equalled by the pompous futility of his argument, which showed the almost abysmal ignorance of civil aviation. I happened to be looking up the Oxford "History of Civil Aviation" a night or two ago. The history of civil aviation in this country provides some of the most outstanding, and probably some of the most disastrous, examples of the failure of private enterprise to deliver the goods in a modern world. It was, I think, just over a hundred years ago, in 1830, that one of the first bogus companies was formed, called the Aeronautical Association, by gentlemen in the City of London, who, in subsequent years, have been described as "merchant adventurers." They invited subscriptions, and obtained large sums from the public to engage in balloon flights of survey and exploration over equatorial Africa. A year or two later, there was the case of the "Eagle," which hon. Members will remember was an airship built and set up in a byway of Kensington, in 1835. A large number of tickets were sold to the public, advertising that it would conduct a regular service between London and Paris. That went on for some time, until an infuriated mob broke up the machine.

I come to more recent times and to the history of civil aviation under private enterprise between the two wars. Look at the position as it was in 1919, when, as I trust this House will never forget, a British aircraft, piloted by a British airman, made the first crossing of the Atlantic. [An HON. MEMBER: "Under private enterprise."] Look at the fact that in America, in 1920 and for some years afterwards, they were obliged to use British types for their civil aviation. Although manufactured there under licence, they were British aircraft. Look what happened here, when bus drivers, motor coach owners, and almost everybody who thought he could make a good thing out of it, jumped into civil aviation. One has only to read the series of reports, starting I think with the Maybury Report. Then there was the Gorell Report, followed by another, whose name escapes me at the moment, leading finally to the Cadman Report in 1938. It was not until a Tory or predominantly Tory Government, in this country in 1939, decided to nationalise our overseas airways, that our overseas aviation was put on anything like a sound, basis. Previously of course, in 1936, as hon. Members will remember, an Act was passed in order to prevent the hopeless cut-throat competition that was taking place in internal airlines. It was only from 1939, that our overseas civilaviation, which after all is the most important, has really been on anything like a sound basis.

When hon. Members opposite seek as they do to make comparisons with civil aviation in America, I often wonder how much they really know about the history and development of civil aviation in America. If we read the Americans' own accounts which, as hon. Members will believe, are not biased in favour of Socialism, we see that it is a sorry story of disasters, swindles, lack of safety and bad services, until the time when a measure of socialisation was introduced under the Air Commerce Act of 1926. Again, I ask hon. Members opposite to consider the facts, to go to America and see those air services, and to travel on our own. I ask them to consider whether the story of British civil aviation since 1939, is not a very much better one than the record of what has been done under private enterprise in America and whether British civil aviation has not produced a much better performance.

I have travelled extensively in the United States in recent years, and I am sorry to say that there is still no comparison between the two.

Exactly what I said—that there was no comparison between the two. When we consider the difficulties of the British Corporation at the outset, under a Tory Minister, or rather Under-Secretary, at the Air Ministry, all the difficulties that were attendant upon that during the war, and when we remember the enormous extension of development that has taken place during the last six years, in spite of those difficulties, I suggest that hon. Members should come to the conclusion, to put it colloquially, that the professional, batting on a very sticky wicket, has secured a great many more runs than the American amateur batting on a very easy wicket. When the hon. Member says that he has lived a long time in America, and has travelled extensively on American airlines, I would ask him whether it is not a fact that most of his travel has been on internal airlines there?

I cannot keep sitting down and bobbing up, but I would also ask the hon. Member what American civil aviation was like before the semi-Socialist measure setting up the Civil Aviation Board was established. Does he know what profits were made by the companies, even after the Civil Aviation Board gave them the great assistance which that excellent institution has done? In fact, it is only in recent years, since 1940, that any substantial profit has been made by these airlines as a whole, in spite of the fact that they had the best aircraft and that they were flying mostly upon internal routes which, by reason of the distances in the United States, must represent, as I say, an "easy wicket."

Pan-American airlines are not allowed to operate internal routes. They operate only on trunk routes.

I was not referring to any particular airline; I said American civil aviation lines as a whole. When you are comparing British overseas airways, and saying that they should be distributed among three corporations, you must compare them with civil airlines in America as a whole. A lot has been said about the necessity for having the right aircraft. I observed that the newspapers, a day or two ago, reported my Noble Friend the Minister as stating that the most important thing in operating an airline was to have the right aircraft. I suggest that that is liable to some misconstruction, because no matter how good your aircraft may be, unless you have an efficient ground organisation it cannot fly as it should. I think there is among the general public some idea that an aircraft is like a ship, whereas a ship is quite a different thing [ Laughter ]. I am glad that hon. Members opposite have shown they are able to appreciate a point like that. A ship can remain at sea for weeks or months maybe, with no more maintentenance than is given it by its own crew, with its own people, and taking in only fuel. But an aircraft all the time depends on the staff and organisation on the ground.

In America—I do not know what the figures are here—it has been said that it needs from 40 to 70 men on the ground to put one civil aircraft into the air. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister to give a little more attention to that point, and to emphasise in their public pronouncements the importance of the organisation on the ground, particularly the importance of constantly improving the conditions and status of those who have to maintain and service aircraft on the ground. It is upon them that, ultimately, the most important factor of the whole lot depends—safety in the air. One does not want to proceed on the slogan, "Safety first" in the air; nevertheless, it has been found on American lines, to which Members opposite are always so fond of referring, that safety is the most important factor in attracting passenger traffic. I regret that there seems to be in the White Paper no mention of that matter. No doubt it will be considered, and if the plan for three corporations is to proceed, it may be decided to set up some joint organisation, such as already exists in B.O.A.C. in the form of a Safety Committee, which goes carefully into every incident, not merely into every accident, and which is largely responsible for the remarkable record that that corporation has had during the last 14 months. It would, perhaps, be undiplomatic to quote figures in comparison with American civil airlines during the same period.

On this topic of organisation, there is the much broader aspect which I should like to emphasise, because I think it meets a great many of the doubts and some of the criticisms which come from Members opposite, and which certainly is a matter of doubt and some thought to Members on this side of the House. I refer to the control of these corporations by civil servants in the Ministry of Civil Aviation. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that one of the reasons for having three groups of managers was that to some extent it avoided or narrowed, the possibility of getting one man in a dictatorial position who might not be a suitable personality, or have the right qualifications, and who might make a mess of the job.

This applies with even greater force to the Ministry of Civil Aviation. It is hardly conceivable, although I suppose it is possible, that one day there might again be a Tory Minister of Civil Aviation. But even disregarding that possibility a Minister is bound to rely to a large extent upon the civil servants in his Ministry who advise him. Everybody who has spoken has agreed that civil servants are not the right type of people, even if they have the necessary qualifications, to run a civil air line. I suggest—and I hope Members opposite will be pleased with this—that running a civil airline is essentially a commercial undertaking [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] By their cheers, Members opposite betray the fact that they cannot see that a commercial undertaking need not necessarily be inspired entirely by private profit motives, or by private capital investments. However, they agree, and I would ask all Members, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, in particular, to consider whether it would not be better to have three corporations, say, but not three boards of directors. Have one board, an Air Transport Board, which would carry out not merely the day-to-day functions of management, although that might be considered to be a little ambiguous, because so far as I can see it would probably only apply to management in the same way as, say, the management of a sub-post office by a sub-postmaster.

In other words it really means nothing when the broad principles or direction of policy remains in the hands of the Minister. If that be so, it follows, under the plan as outlined in the White Paper, and in my hon. Friend's speech, that the present boards have no function at all. The day to day management is to be conducted by the managers and the broad policy is to be directed by the Minister. I suggest that these boards should be removed and that a new board should be constituted called "The Air Transport Board," which would take from the Minister almost every function of direction and control, leaving him only to give every assistance that he could. I feel sure that previous history at least shows that he would have his time fully occupied in giving assistance in fighting the battles of civil aviation with other Government Departments. I suggest that this board should be appointed not by the Minister—certainly not entirely by the Minister—but should be representative of all those industries and interests which have a commercial or any other legitimate interest in the furtherance of civil aviation. This is not an individual view, it is not even my own suggestion. I find it rather difficult to believe that the Lord President, with his well-known views on the type of organisation required by a Socialist industry, will be able to explain why the precedents of the London Passenger Transport Board and the new proposal in the Coal Mines Bill are not to be followed in this case. If ever there was a case in which it was absolutely essential to remove the conduct of an industry from red tape, from the Civil Service mind, from control by Whitehall, it is the civil aviation industry.

I conclude by repeating in as few words as I can what has already been said by several other hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House as to the importance of making this proposal only the first step towards the international ownership and operation of all civil aviation. The phrase "order in the air" has been criticised from the other side of the House. My criticism of it is that it is taken directly from Lord Swinton's White Paper. Order in the air is not enough. We have had phrases of that kind before. What is required, I suggest, and what the peoples of the world and certainly the people of this country are waiting for, is some practical example, some concrete illustration of that international co-operation about which all parties are always speaking and to which everybody has given lip service, but which so far we have never seen except in time of war. On that point I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President whether he will not be prepared on behalf of His Majesty's Government to say that they now intend to take the initiative, to formulate concrete proposals and to issue invitations to those few countries—countries maybe that do not carry much weight with hon. Members opposite since they happen to be our Dominions—New Zealand and Australia who, with France, have all signified their acceptance of this principle. I would ask whether, in that small area, the second step could not be taken towards what in the end will fulfil the promise made to the electorate on this matter by the Party to which I have the honour to belong, namely, that this instrument of civil aviation will live up to the name "Wings for peace."

7.35 p.m.

I must ask for the customary indulgence of the House as this is the first occasion upon which I have spoken. I find myself also in the difficulty of following a very able speech in criticism of the White Paper and I am looking forward to seeing the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Shawcross) vote in opposition to the Motion which is before the House today. He made a brilliant criticism of the White Paper when he reached the less didactic part of his speech, if I may say so, with respect.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House one or two points in which it would seem that the Government, in dealing with civil aviation, have not profited from the mistakes which they have made during the interim period since they were elected to office. One of the important lessons which they could have drawn from their dealings with the Service Departments in connection with aircraft is the point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) made when he pointed out that in wartime it might or it might not be justified to interpose a Supply Department between the Departments which used the aircraft and the industries which produced them. In wartime technical development is rather apt to impede continued production and the rate at which it is desired to produce aircraft, but in peacetime the production departments should be mere contract agencies, and it is upon research and development that the emphasis is needed.

In the case of the Spitfire, we had an instance where the principles "necessary to war applied even though it was developed before the war under great pressure. There were successive makes of Spitfire and no great change of design. On the other hand, what is required from these corporations which are being set up is, that they should be able to draw up their own specifications, that they should be able to invite direct tenders from the industries and that they should not be forced to take designs which have been approved and ordered by the Ministry of Supply and Aircraft Production in consultation with the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

There have also been mistakes in the production of aeroplanes. One of the reasons why even the obsolescent York is not coming forward as fast as it should is that the labour which should be on the job has either been taken away or allowed to drift away. It is indeed lamentable that an industry such as our aircraft industry was at the end of the war should not now have sufficient labour to live up to the delivery schedule of the York and the Tudor, which were promised, and one would have liked to have seen in the White Paper some more robust expression of the steps the Government were to take to keep deliveries up to schedule than the merely anodyne generality that they were going to "take all possible steps."

There is another field in which the Government have made mistakes and where it is a matter for regret that they have not incorporated in this White Paper the lessons they could have learned. For instance, in the international field, the Government who, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, are in favour of mass travel and oppose petty nationalism, and who, he said, would set an example in eliminating that petty nationalism, have, in recent weeks, forced the American air lines to restrict their passenger-carrying capacity to 500 a week to this country and to raise their fares from £68 to some £96 for the trans-Atlantic crossing. That figure compares with the B.O.A.C. fare of £142 for the single journey.

This is an attitude which should never have been exhibited by a Government, to force a foreign airline which is able to carry a larger number of passengers to restrict the number of passengers to a fraction of those who are anxious to come here, and whom the airline could carry. If it is intended to keep those passengers out of England, visas should be refused them. If it is intended to force them on to British shipping lines, that is a consideration which the Parliamentary Secretary should not have in mind. It really seems very paltry, at a time when British airlines can only take some dozen passengers a week and take four or five days to get to America, that the Government should say that the American airlines, who can bring passengers over in something like 24 hours, should not be allowed to do so.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain this matter and also to give an explanation of the fact that the fares of Pan-American were forced up again. He said, in opening the Debate, that the principle of the Government was that fares should be economic, by the most efficient operator in the best aircraft. I understand that Pan-American are prepared to substantiate their fares on this principle, and it is hard to understand how the Government can say at this stage that to force the American airlines to carry their own nationals at half fares redounds to the credit of this country or in any way assists our civil aviation policy.

The Parliamentary Secretary also sought in his opening speech to justify the White Paper. There are two magic phrases which are used by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to justify their policy. One is that a matter is "under consideration" and the other is the blessed word "mandate." The Parliamentary Secretary got very near to using the word "mandate" in his opening speech. I have taken the trouble to do a little research, and I have found that, according to the REPORT of the Debates in this Parliament, 132 matters have been under consideration, of which 18 were under urgent consideration, and the Labour Party have received 27 mandates. The word "mandate," used by hon. Members opposite, produces a conditioned reflex of cheers which would do credit to Pavlov's dogs.

The mandate which the Government have had is not one for running the civil aviation business of this country inefficiently. It is not a mandate to cause all trans-Atlantic passengers who go to Hurn to start their journey by a four-hour 'bus ride instead of on a train which takes only some two or two and a half hours. It is not a mandate to lag behind countries that were devastated by the enemy in recent times, such as France, Denmark and Belgium, and which run civil air lines to this country. At the end of the war with Germany those countries had not a single plane, and no aviation industry, while this country has until now not had any European air service, unless we count the B.O.A.C. service to Lisbon. That is not the mandate the Government have had.

The Parliamentary Secretary prayed in aid Thalés the philosopher. He is much more acquainted with the matter, in view of his first in classics at Oxford, than I am, but I think I am right in saying that that philosopher, besides giving a warning against unfenced wells, also conveyed another lesson. It was he who first created a monopoly and ran a corner in one of the raw materials needed in the civil aviation industry, namely, oil. He was put to death by the Tyrant of Euboea. It is noteworthy that some of the supporters of the Government from the back benches were anxious to go further than the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) was anxious to strangle this infant child. The analogy of civil aviation as an infant has been overdone in this Debate. Still I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind the Chinese proverb, which says that it is unwise to remove a fly from a baby's face with a hatchet.

Here is a budding industry. I hope—and here I am on the side of the Parliamentary Secretary—that the Minister will restrain his wild men from pursuing the policy of Herod. The reason why this Motion should be opposed is that the Government have shown in their scheme for civil aviation in the last few months that they have not profited from their mistakes. It is a matter for regret that the lessons which they should have learned have not been inserted in the policy and objects set out in the White Paper.

7.50 p.m.

Before I address myself to the Motion, I would like to exercise the privilege which I now have of congratulating the hon. Member for North-wich (Mr. John Foster) on his magnificent maiden speech. It would be presumptuous of me to say very much about it, because this is only my. second speech, but I must congratulate him on exercising so magnificently his mandate as a maiden speaker to be really non-controversial. The House will look forward to hearing him on other occasions when, I am sure, he will be equally exciting and non-controversial.

I want to approach this subject from one particular angle. As a young man, I am concerned with the future and with whether or not we can avoid another war—a repetition of the war we have just had and the one which I passed through as a small child It seems to me that everything we do and say and think in the House should be measured against whether or not it helps to prevent the next war, whether or not it is an aid to getting world peace. I believe the aeroplane can help mankind just to the extent that it can help mankind to get together. In so far as it is an instrument which divides mankind, it is detestable. I believe the Minister feels very much along those lines, for in his speech he said that we want civil aviation to be a means of reconciling the nations of the world to live in peace. It is against that background that I would like to develop two points. The first point has reference to paragraph 27 of the White Paper, and the second point which I shall subsequently develop, and which is tied up with this one, has to do with the first three paragraphs of the White Paper. In paragraph 27 there are the following words: ultimately, as we must, an international and non-national civil aviation Corporation, we can leave it to that international organisation to buy in the best market. I believe Britain will be found to be the best market, and I do not believe it is necessary to produce a kind of monopoly to make quite certain that the British aircraft industry will have a sale for its goods. There is another aspect of the White Paper, and the speeches of the Minister in another place, that worries me a little bit; it is the relation of the thing we are now setting up with nationalism, with its background of fear. Lord Winster, in his speech in another place on 1st November, said:

If the hon. Member is quoting from a speech in another place I am afraid he is not in Order.

I ought, perhaps, to qualify that Ruling by saying that if the speech was a statement of policy, the hon. Member may refer to but not quote from it.

I think that the statement made by the Minister on 1st November must undoubtedly have been a statement of policy, for it was made for that specific reason.

It is that statement of policy, which is reflected in this White Paper, that I consider to be so disturbing. It is, moreover, disturbing if we set it against some of the statements, and the attitude of mind behind some of the statements, of the Parliamentary Secretary and the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan). There were references to Drake, and about British aviation not needing to fear any competition, and the right hon. Member for Bromley spoke of a civil air service that need fear no rivals. Later on, he said that the air is to modern England as the seas were to us of old. That seems to me to be very much like nationalism, and I believe nationalism is now the world's public enemy No. I.

It must go forth from this House and this country that we do not like nationalism and that we intend to get away from it, and I believe that in this utility service which we are now about to set up there is one step that we can and must take at the very earliest opportunity to dispose of the background of nationalism; for we can only get world peace, as everybody knows, and as it should be repeated in this House on occasions when we talk of foreign affairs, if we get international government. Therefore, we must take steps in all our policies to see that international government is made slightly more easy. If there were no other reason why civil aviation should be nationalised, there is sufficient reason in that one thing. If civil aviation is nationalised, less interference is likely to come from it to a proposal which this country might make on international lines.

I want to recall to the memory of the House the 1927 cruiser Conference at Geneva, which it was reported was very largely spiked by a Mr. Shearer, who was representing the private interests of the American shipbuilding industry. I do not think there is so much likelihood of a British Mr. Shearer appearing at an international conference if civil aviation is a nationally-owned corporation. There is, moreover, another point which I think is very important. I hope that very soon there will be an international conference to consider the setting up of a non-national aviation corporation of world extent at which the Russians will attend, and if that proposal makes sense to them, I suspect they may have slightly different opinions from us as to the rates of compensation to be paid.

If this industry is nationally owned for the good of the people, we are not going to haggle very much about the price of that compensation if we can get the world airways system shared by us, the Russians and other people. If this industry ever were run on private lines, I can see that a proposal of scant compensation might not be so easily received. As the really important factor is to get from this industry a utility service for the people of the world and divorce it from nationalism, it does seem to me very important to take steps now to make that second step more easy at the earliest possible moment.

I should like to add one caveat and address it not only to Members on the other side, but also to the Government. I realise that this is a step, but I want to point out that it is a dangerous step—a step to nationalism. I believe that the measure of the danger of a proposal of this kind is the measure of the extent to which it is national. So long as it is on the basis of a nationalised, socialised industry I contend that it is full of danger. It is rather like the man skating on thin ice. So long as he is at the middle he is comparatively safe, but when he realises the ice is cracking and he must make for terra firma, he is at the most dangerous point just a few moments before he is at the safest point. We have made now a move in the direction of what we want— terra firma —but as long as the industry is on a national basis, we are on the edge of very thin ice.

Our ultimate object then must be to keep in mind, all the time, the creation of a non-national, non-profit making, world utility air service. Many negotiations have, I understand, been conducted in the past and, have apparently been conducted quite recently. The first two paragraphs of the White Paper indicate their measure of failure. I should like to suggest to the Government that it may be extremely difficult to get international agreement if what they are looking for is agreement between different national corporations. For example, it is very often found difficult to get a trade association of competitive firms to work harmoniously together, but in almost every case where it was for the mutual advantage of all the participants concerned, and a trade association has not been working, it succeeded because it was found that an amalgamated company or single corporation was necessary. Indeed it has been easy to get a single corporation to succeed where you could not get a trade association to work.

I suggest to the Government that the line of approach should be to go to other Governments and say" We are prepared to scrap British civil aviation altogether, and turn our assets over to a non-national corporation if it will carry us economically and efficiently." That is what we want to get. An hon. Member opposite said today that this was a sad day for British aviation. I entirely agree with him that this is a very sad day for British aviation, just as it is a very sad day for a caterpillar when it becomes a chrysalis. Ultimately I think the chrysalis becomes equally sad, when it is left by the butterfly. This is the beginning of the end of British civil aviation, thank God! We want a non-British, non-national world civil aviation organisation to carry the people of all countries and of the world, and to carry them in a world of peace.

8.15 p.m.

I should like to open my remarks by congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary on his admission concerning the future use of aircraft. I was glad to see that no Member on this side of the House took exception to the purchase of five Constellations, and pointed out that it had been hoped that British, aviation could await delivery of the Brabazon types. I feel certain there is no practical way of dealing with the Atlantic except by such purchase. I am glad to hear also that that remarkable aircraft the De Havilland Rapide, which has had to carry our internal lines for more than 12 years, will be superseded on many routes by the JU 52. It can well afford to be given an honourable rest. I cannot however give the same measure of support to the growing tendency of the Party opposite to suggest that in the past civil aviation has neglected the poor class passenger. I have noticed with distaste the effort to make party kudos on that point. Many years ago I went" barnstorming" with aircraft giving joyrides to as many people as possible at 5s. per passenger, and I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that there has been no desire in British civil airlines not to carry the maximum amount of passengers at the lowest possible rates.

I feel sure that the pioneers of air transport have never felt so downcast as at this moment. The Government policy as set out in this White Paper is the last of a line of bitter disappointments. Commercial air transport has proved to be an industry wrecked by circumstances outside its control. It suffered at its birth by becoming a stepchild of the Secretary of State for Air. It was put out to nurse under directors often chosen for their lack of nuisance value. It was many years before those directors were dignified by the name of "Director-General," and further time lapsed before the position was considered worthy of knighthood. Placing air transport under a Minister chiefly interested in the Royal Air Force was comparable to employing the Admiralty to develop a healthy mercantile marine. Between 1934 and 1939 air transport was held back by preparations for war, and during six years of war there has been no chance of natural development. Finally, when it could enjoy its first opportunity the Government suggest that the pent-up energy of the individual should be thrown away and the dead end of public ownership substituted.

British air transport, as we have heard on all sides, is too young for such treatment. The Government are stealing a child from the nursery. Whatever may be thought of nationalisation, the Government would be incapable of running anything but a well-established industry. I think it is admitted by all of us that British air transport is vital to the prosperity of the nation. It is also essential to the Empire, which will lean towards those countries which can provide the quickest and the best facilities for contact and trade. I believe that if Parliament had left British civil aviation alone, greater progress would have resulted. Instead, it has been organised and re-organised, it has had this Paper and that, and Commission after Commission reporting on its welfare. There has been no continuity of policy, and its leading personnel, I can truly say, have often been driven to despair.

To build a successful air transport we shall need initiative and enterprise, which only individuals can supply, and the taking of business risks which are not justifiable at public expense. The Government are pressing nationalisation against the considered reports of many knowledgeable aviation bodies. I refer to the recommendations of the Joint Air Transport Committee of the London Chamber of Commerce, of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors, of the Aerodrome Owners Association, and of the Lamplugh Independent Committee. Further, the Government consistently ignore, no matter how frequently they are warned, the most successful aviation in the world, that of America. This has been developed under free enterprise, guided by a Civil Aeronautics Board in which, thank heavens, politics play no part. Prior to the establishment of this body, American aviation was also the shuttle-cock of politics and, in consequence, little progress was made. The Government are throwing away all this advice and example for the doctrinaire gospel of nationalisation. The word" nationalisation" may sound attractive but it means monopoly, and of monopolies State control is the worst.

It is necessary to suggest what should be done to make a success of our air transport. Of the many Committees set up by successive Governments, I go right back to 1935 to the recommendations of the Fisher Committee. That Committee suggested that "spheres of development should be allotted to individual companies" which would, of course, build up airlines in these spheres under free commercial enterprise. That is the secret of American success. We cannot do better that adopt and improve on the American system. It has 19 prosperous airlines providing air transport at five cents per passenger mile and operating without subsidy. It has three companies flying the Atlantic while Pan-American is conquering South America at the same time. While we talk, they succeed. Why? Because America leaves air transport to businessmen.

Why was the pre-war licensing authority abrogated? It could have been suspended during the war. It had become an effective and capable guide to the industry Under it, internal airlines in 1939 knew peace surpassing understanding. I believe the Air Ministry was jealous of it. It had a will of its own; it exposed inefficiency. We should set up this authority again, free from political influence and staffed by personnel with no commercial aviation interests. Legislation is not necessary; it could be done by Order in Council. This reconstituted licensing authority would correspond to the Civil Aeronautic Board of America. It should be of a quasi-judicial nature and with personnel consisting of, say, five individuals. It should control the development of our domestic and international airlines, and it should allocate spheres of development to various companies. It should regulate competition between operators. All airlines would be bound to supply details of their expenses, their earnings, and their profits in such a way that the authority could compare any two operators and detect inefficiency. Shall we get such details from these Government companies? Monthly and annual reports should be published by the authority. This arrangement would ensure that individual energy and initiative were organised to meet the social and economic needs of the nation. Applicants anxious to commence airlines would appear before this Licensing Authority and have to prove three things: (1), that the service was necessary; (2) that they had the technical ability to carry the project through; and, (3), that they possessed or could obtain the necessary finance. Licences would be granted for a period of years. No subsidy would be paid except if prestige routes were required to be developed to sparsely populated places in the Empire.

As to surface transport, this should be barred from a controlling interest in any air transport company. By that way only can one ensure purity of operation. In my judgment, there should be three or four companies joining Great Britain to Europe; two or three serving Canada and America and at least more than one across the South Atlantic. By this set-up keen Boards would bring initiative and energy to the development of air transport and demand different types of aircraft, thus stimulating manufacture. These companies operating as commercial, free enterprises, would be responsible for their finance, their aircraft orders, the development and management of routes allotted, and for the overhaul and repair of their aircraft and engines. They could, if it were considered desirable, contribute to a central school of pilot training and to a technical and research department—though in my opinion such firms as De Havil-lands, Bristols, Vickers, Blackburns, Miles Aircraft, and others, are well able to maintain their own or to contribute to one organisation which might well be organised under the Society of British Aircraft Constructors.

As to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, it should control technical necessities, such as radio stations, beam systems, beacon lights, meteorology and uniformity of ground services. It should also see that the conditions under which airline firms employ their staff are satisfactory. The Air Registration Board should continue to supervise aircraft, safety standards and annual overhauls. I have been in touch with various people who willy nilly will be obliged to continue in aviation to earn their bread and butter. They have put forward queries which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to answer. Charter firms find no comfort in the Government's invitation to compete with State monopoly. Under the White Paper they are invited to operate, but when a regular demand for charter has been built up between two points, what is to prevent the Government commencing an air line and thus robbing the charter company of its initiative and goodwill?

Is the Government prepared to reconsider the matter and leave charter work to free enterprise? Leading charter firms such as Birkett Air Services, Air Taxis and Surrey Flying Services had their aircraft taken away in 1940. Will the Government permit them to acquire at once the same number of aircraft from surplus Royal Air Force stores? Will the Government remember that charter firms serving London must be given, aerodrome facilities near the city? On such the success of charter depends. Will charter firms be permitted to operate from Hanworth, Heston and Croydon as before the war? Will the possibility of their establishment at Heathrow be considered so that incoming international passengers can charter aircraft to individual destinations?

Will the Government guarantee that all travel agencies may book for charter services? Many of us remember the ban imposed by the railways prior to 1938 which prevented any travel agency booking for independent air lines. While on the question of charter I would like to strike a note of warning. I am disturbed lest ex-personnel of the Royal Air Force may consider that by purchasing one or two planes they can develop a successful charter service. I fear the loss of their capital. I hope we shall not see a flood of small ventures setting up and failing to the detriment of the industry.

As to the White Paper, I would prefer to call it a "black Paper." It states that "His Majesty's Government do not consider there is any case for payment of compensation for goodwill." I cannot agree with this and I plead that there is no precedent for such a dangerous decision. What is goodwill? It is that which accrues to a venture after one has worked hard for a long period and sacrificed much to make it a success. There is goodwill in this House. Look at the Front benches. They represent goodwill. The Parliamentary Secretary has achieved the Front Bench in a remarkably short time and on that I congratulate him. But if you, Mr. Speaker, revolting at dull speeches, were to permit a sudden game of musical chairs, which I do not think would be altogether unpopular with the back benches, the hon. Gentleman might lose his seat in the resultant scramble, despite his undoubted skill at running. In that event I am sure he would plead goodwill and even refer to his future prospect of increased emoluments under the Committee which is now sitting and I think there are few who would not sympathise with him.

Air transport companies have been operating for 12 years and gross receipts have increased fortyfold, passengers twelvefold and mail and freight beyond recognition. These companies received no financial assistance from their foundation till 1939 and they met the initial losses inseparable from pioneering. They are not requesting the Government to buy. They have every desire to continue. They are confident that they would recoup past losses through normal trading.

The House may be interested in one example—a small company, founded in 1934, operating an internal line of 250 miles. Its first year's receipts were £1,300 and its loss £8,000. That company today is grossing £40,000, but it lost £27,000 before income balanced expenditure. The Government propose to compensate airline companies operating on 1st November, 1945. There were, however, several companies not functioning at that date through no fault of their own. They were granted licences in 1939 to operate routes for a number of years but in June, 1940, they had all their aircraft taken from them in the national crisis. All were assured that this action was due to the war and that with peace they would be entitled to resume. If this is not to be permitted, the Government should be willing to examine claims for development expenses and goodwill. It may be helpful to name some of these companies: Air Despatch, Atlantic Coasts Air Services, British American Air Services, Portsmouth Aviation, the Straight Corporation and Wrightways. The Government has announced it will take over the physical assets of air lines operating on 1st November, 1945. How will it arrive at a valua- tion? Will it accept a vendor's" willing seller figure? If free commercial enterprise had been allowed to restart the market would be a guide to valuation, but the Government itself has destroyed the market. How does the Government propose to deal with directors? Surely they deserve some compensation if they are to be rendered jobless by Government decree? How will the Government secure any form of competition between the proposed corporations comparable to that which would arise from free commercial aviation? What will be the incentive to keep costs down? We have just seen the British Broadcasting Company table accounts showing that the salaries of their own staff far exceed the sums paid to artists who provide the entertainment and as a result the public are being asked to pay twice as much for wireless licences.

Is it not possible to devise a scheme by which executives of existing and prewar companies could continue to operate and develop their lines on an agency basis? The Government would own the assets and take the receipts. Executives might be rewarded by payment of operational costs plus some incentive payment calculated on route mileage flown which would encourage efficiency. Of course we all assume that under this White Paper, staff will be taken over by the Government and contracts honoured.

Scotland has every claim to control its own air transport by a separate Corporation or by a powerful subsidiary to the proposed British European unit. Scotland wishes to operate her own domestic and international airlines. Scottish Members of this House are united on this issue, irrespective of party. [An HON. MEMBER:" They are not."] Scotland can point out that long before England was air minded, she was pioneering air routes which have proved uniformly successful. No Scottish airline has ever closed down. They have operated throughout the war when few, if any, internal airlines have run in England. For years, passengers, who have never seen a railway train, have been flying on the Scottish airlines.

I should like to pay tribute to pioneers such as Mr. John Sword, who opened the routes from Glasgow to Campbeltown and Islay, to Captain Fresson, who formed Highland Airways and connected the Orkneys to the mainland, obtaining the first air mail contract in Great Britain, and Mr. George Nicholson, who took over the Glasgow services and extended them to additional Western Islands. I would also draw attention to those air minded steamship companies, Messrs. McBraynes and the North of Scotland Orkney and Shetland, which have assisted in developing Scottish air transport.

There is also the debt that Britain owes to the Douglas Hamilton family, whose foresight made the Atlantic ferry possible. This was a contribution of inestimable value to winning the war. I suggest that a Scottish Corporation should develop all lines North of Glasgow and Edinburgh and all Scottish international airlines. Consideration might also be given to this Corporation sharing the services from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London on a fifty-fifty basis.

There is no case for the public ownership of airlines. They are not owned by the State in America, where air transport is an outstanding success. Britain's aerodromes have been built by commercial owners and municipalities who for 12 years have worked together to form the Aerodrome Owners Association. The Executive of this body is skilled and knowledgeable. It has repeatedly placed its services at the disposal of the Government. Is it desired to throw away this experience? [ Interruption. ] If hon. Members will forgive me I shall finish all the sooner.

I hope that hon. Members will permit the hon. Member to conclude his speech.

The effect of war has sapped the virility of the Aircraft Manufacturer. Firms have learned to regard the Government as their sole customer. They are now faced with the necessity for seeking overseas trade. It would be fatal to make the Ministry of Aircraft Production the only avenue through which the airline operator can order aircraft.

The Coalition Government proposed three monopoly companies. B.O.A.C. was to have a finger in every pie. I protested to Lord Swinton and to the then Prime Minister that the scheme was halfway towards nationalisation, and I made the issue a point at the General Election. The present Government have walked through a half-open door. One cannot touch pitch without being defiled. Free enterprise is to be sent to the gas chamber. This policy will hand the air to America. Our enemies there will erect a statue, to those who have conceived it, higher than the Empire State building; our friends will be sorry that all capable competition has been removed. I cannot compromise with State monopoly or cancer. I regard both as deadly. Cancer destroys the body; State monopoly crushes out all that is great in the individual and takes away his adventurous spirit. It will give birth to a new aristocracy, a vast number of bureaucratic officials to whom the citizen will first learn to be subservient and then to fear. Once created, these bureaucracies will continue. Has anyone known a Government Department to commit Hara Kiri ? With industry after industry nationalised a growing bloc of Government servants will become more and more powerful in politics until the State has no opposition.

8.36 p.m.

I am glad to have this opportunity to speak, as I have a special interest in this question. For my sins or virtues, Heathrow happens to be in my constituency. I am concerned that in the White Paper, in the last analysis no mention is made of the extent to which we, as Members of Parliament and as a House, will exercise control over civil aviation. I do not mean in day to day management but in the final question of policy, which it seems to me will often be determined without reference to us. Since I have been here I have re-learned as a back bencher the lesson I learned either at or over my father's knee, that small boys should be seen but seldom heard. I have even learned to accept with some degree of equanimity that we must wait some time to get answers to our correspondence from various Departments, but I think that even back bench worms are entitled to turn, when after writing to Departments they receive very evasive replies and then find that in the local Press an Air Ministry or civil aviation official is able to tell them exactly what is to happen to Heathrow, when the Member—and incidentally the local authority is also very much concerned—is unable to obtain any information.

We learn that an official has said to a reporter for the local Press that Heathrow will be doubled in size, that the village of Sipson will disappear. They may be safe for perhaps up to seven years, but if one's head is to be chopped off there is not much consolation in waiting seven years for it to happen. I hope we shall be able to get rather more information than we have at the present time. We know that at the commencement of this aerodrome under powers conferred by Defence Regulations a lot of things were done by the Air Ministry, with the knowledge that the main use of this airport was to be civil and not military. I happened to be a member of the county council when we were told that the ultimate object was provision for civil aviation. I find that in pursuance of these Defence Regulations about 200 people were turned off their allotments—without others being provided for them—some of whom have been cultivating them for about 20 years.

I have heard Members here pleading for Yorkshire, Scotland and even Wales to have these aerodromes. All I can say, on behalf of my constituency, is that they would be very glad if the Minister would take Heathrow and put it somewhere else. I would however warn them rather seriously about it. The time has come when the House ought to be told whether there is a final plan, and if someone from the Department can talk to the Press, and tell them that finality has been reached, and that it is hoped that a Bill will be introduced in the House in a few weeks dealing with this particular question, it seems to me that when Members make requests and the local authority also make a request in order that they may be able to proceed with their own planning, this information might be made available to them.

I do not wish to interrupt the flow of my hon. Friend's argument, but he complains of the brutal and callous treatment that he and his local authority have received from the Ministry of Civil Aviation. If we on this side of the House can be of any assistance to him, we are at his service.

I do not want to get out of the frying pan into the fire. To deal with the question of the White Paper as such, hon. Gentlemen on the other side said that they want free enterprise. They want free enterprise as against a measure of any form of Government control. I would like to remind them of the position with regard to London transport which, I think, could be taken as an analogy of what might happen. Certainly, the existing history is not very favourable to private enterprise, when one considers the amount of subsidies which were poured into the laps of these companies in the period before the war. What happened in London transport as a result of this great free enterprise was that on the most profitable routes which were operated by the London General Omnibus Company pirate buses were put on to skim off the cream of the trade, and the company found they were left with the unprofitable routes and that private people were taking the profitable ones. That got so bad that Parliament had to take a hand and set up the London Passenger Transport Board in order to do away with the evils of free enterprise.

That is an analogy. If hon. Gentlemen on the other side want free enterprise, that is what they have got to have. They have either to have one or the other. If we are going to have control, surely we ought to have it in a form in which the people themselves can exercise the fullest measure of authority over that control, and in order that there might be someone answerable to the people. That is why I say I am concerned that this House shall exercise, at some stage or other, the fullest control over the policy of civil aviation. I shall be glad to have an assurance, although there is not very much reference to it in the White Paper that it is the intention that the House will exercise full control at some stage or other both in the development, and in the policy, as it may be changed from time to time. I hope this White Paper will be accepted as the start. The alternative, as I have already pointed out, is private competition, and you cannot stop it. You have one or the other. We think on this side of the House that we have—should I use that much misused term, mandate, again—a mandate for ordered progress. That is at least what this White Paper will do to begin with, and we shall look, as the White Paper says, to a fully internationalised air service capable and available for all the people of the world.

8.44 p.m.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Gandar Dower) said that what we wanted in this country was a freedom from State control so that initiative, enterprise, and adventure and all the rest of those qualities, should have the opportunity of expressing themselves in civil aviation. I seem to remember at the beginning of the war it was decided it was essential we should run an Atlantic service, and I fail to recall that the Government of that day found it essential to go to the City of London in order to float a company to start a concern to operate over the North Atlantic in those difficult days. What happened was that they got hold of some people who knew what they were talking about, and a service was started. Frankly, I fail to see why men with similar ideas, vision and energy should not in the rather different circumstances of today provide us with a service which would be as successful as was that North Atlantic service at the beginning of the war.

There is a point too about Prestwick which has been brought in again today. I like Scotsmen. I like them because they appear to be rather more radical than some people South of the Border, but I do get rather tired of the Scots thinking it is an air port at Prestwick which is going to bring them to some kind of paradise. Surely, they are bound up economically with this country, and what we require to see is an air line service which will benefit both the countries. The great advantage of Prestwick during the war, and the reason why it was developed during the war, was that it was out of the way. That is the reason why most of the aircraft were brought into Prestwick and not into places further South. It was out of enemy range or, at least, it was less liable to interference from enemy activity. That advantage during the war does seem to me to be a very serious disadvantage when we are considering international air termini during peace.

I hesitate to refer to the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), since he appears to treat rather unkindly any reference to his speech, but when he goes off into the sort of rhetoric that the tree of civil aviation has not yet budded, that the fruit has not grown, and that the tree has not yet flowered, I am inclined to go back to the year when although the tree had not budded, it was nevertheless bearing some pretty good fruit for certain people. Imperial Airways before the war were paying out pretty hefty dividends to certain individuals in this country, and I think we are entitled to refer to the record of private enterprise in this country before the war when we are considering the future of civil aviation. The right hon. Member for Bromley asked us on what grounds the Swinton White Paper was turned down. If he wished to address that question to me, I would say it was turned down because it was hypocritical. There is something to be said for private enterprise. I believe there is a place for private enterprise, but I am not impressed with the sort of private enterprise which some people wanted in civil aviation according to that White Paper.

I would like for a moment to examine it. It was said time and again that they did not want any subsidy, that they were prepared to run services without a subsidy. Fair enough. If they were prepared to do that, I would admire them, but the position seems to me to be that we are spending something like £20 millions to £27 millions on Heathrow. Although they were not requiring subsidies, what sort of a contribution were they prepared to make to the construction of airports of that size? They would want a finer meteorological service—which they will get—but what sort of contribution were the private firms prepared to make towards the upkeep of that meteorological service? We shall require over the world a first-rate radio-navigational network. What sort of contribution were these private firms prepared to make towards the upkeep of that service? It seems to me that these private firms who wanted to run these airlines would be rather in the same position as a railway company which was prepared to run a railway line provided that the State gave them the railway stations, and that they trained their staffs free, as the country was doing for British South American Airways. The railway company would want its signals service free and various other information about the routes also provided at State expense, and then they would say they would run the rail- way line at a profit. Of course, on those terms anybody can run at a profit, especially if at the same time they were getting a very reasonable indirect subsidy from the Post Office for the carriage of mails.

I am not impressed by those sort of people, who come and say, "We will run this for you without a subsidy." If we wanted that sort of thing, I would say, "Let the hon. Member for Caithness get on with his work," because I feel that he is distinct from some of the people organising airlines in this country and was making a contribution to the country in organising reasonable services.

Although I make that criticism of the viewpoint of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, I still realise that we on this side of the House have to justify our own position, and, frankly, on the face of it at the moment, I do not think we are showing quite the right sort of spirit in the way we are tackling the matter. Hon. Members opposite have to get used to the idea of criticism of public enterprise coming from this side of the House, and it is about time they learned not to giggle when some criticism is made of an attempt to run a service under public control and ownership. This is the sort of feeling which runs through my mind when I go through the White Paper and when I listen to the Parliamentary Secretary explaining it in greater detail. We are to run these three corporations, financed with public funds, and, on the best evidence that is given to me—and I have gone into this question very carefully—I see no reason to believe that we should find funds for this business on any better terms than from the nation or from the Government.

We are then left with the problem of who is to manage and administer the services we are going to run. I am in agreement with the hon. Members who spoke from these benches and from the benches opposite that we cannot run airlines from Whitehall, or even from the Strand. They must be run by people who understand what it is they are talking about, and who understand the implications of any decisions made in the board room. This has not been the case even under private enterprise. The hon. Member for Caithness suggested that the politicians should get on with their job and leave this to private enterprise. On one occasion we did, in 1919, when, without any political interference at all, private concerns operated airline services overseas. That lasted for something less than 18 months. The one difficulty confronting the people who did know something about it was in finding sufficient capital to keep pace with technical developments. When this was realised, the sort of people who came into the business had the money but not the technical knowledge, and we saw, from 1921 onwards, apart from the internal airlines developed in Scotland, people administering them who did not have the technical knowledge. The unfortunate part of the business, so far as I and hon. Members on this side are concerned, is that the sort of people who were operating in the board rooms in the days of semi-private enterprise before the war are apparently the same sort of people who are coming into the board rooms under public enterprise after the war—a sort of stage army. I did not like that army on its first appearance and I do not like it any more on its second.

There are people in the industry today whose particular job it is and who have been dealing with it for some time and who know the technical side of the industry and possess administrative ability as well. I am not convinced that either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary have tried to get directors from people who have been through the ranks. I am not convinced of that at all. The Minister has got one director for example, with a very imposing name—D'Erlanger—I know little about him, though he is said to have invented a device by which certain people, in appropriate social circles, could avoid the more irritating responsibilities of war service—but, apart from that organisation, it is not clear to me what qualifications that kind of person has to operate a Socialist concern such as the Parliamentary Secretary said this afternoon he was setting up.

In my division, we fought a hard fight. A lot of people worked very hard, but I do not think that, when they were doing that work, they thought they were doing it to put Mr. D'Erlanger or similar people on the board of directors of a Socialist concern. I ask the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, when making further appointments, to consider how best they can gain the confidence and co-operation of these people who have been doing the job so far. A lot has been said about the way in which the British Overseas Airways Corporation has developed during the last three or four years. It has developed in marvellous fashion, but it has not been because of any great skill or direction from Ariel House or even Airways House. It has been in spite of deep discouragement from those people at the head. I feel that we have to convince the people who are working in the industry that we want their co-operation, and we must earn their confidence, and I think that, if we get that co-operation and that confidence, we can indeed build a service which will do credit to this country.

8.58 p.m.

I have been extremely worried in reading the White Paper, and also on hearing the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, in that next to nothing, or really nothing at all, has been said about safety. We have got to realise that, in this country, more than in any other, the main problem, the exceptional problem, is with regard to the fog situation during the winter months. We talk about different aerodromes that will be needed in case something goes wrong with Heathrow, and I feel, from my knowledge of pilots and from living with them, that they will be most anxious, in watching this Debate, to see what is said on that subject. I think the Lord President should make some statement to-day about what is going to be done about "Fido." It has been very slightly referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward), who made, I think, one of the best maiden speeches I have heard for a long time, but I feel that the Lord President ought to say something more about it. If we are going to achieve safety in this country, and get Americans and other people to come here and not go direct to Paris, we must have the most up-to-date methods in order to land aircraft in this country. At the present moment, it is a really crucial point, because, within a week from today, the Petroleum Warfare Department ceases to exist. That is the Department that deals entirely with "Fido," "Pluto," and other things as well. We have tonight been talking rather in the clouds. We should be more practical about civil aviation, and other industries. I have never been very keen on the nationalisation, by different Ministries and Departments, of different industries.

I have always felt that we ought to give new industries a fair chance. Civil aviation in Great Britain needs "Fido", i.e., fog dispersal inventions. Within the last few weeks the B.B.C. has broadcast various statements about "Fido" which have proved to be inaccurate. The Ministry of Civil Aviation took the figures from the B.B.C. and only at the last minute went to the Petroleum Warfare Department and found them to be completely inaccurate. I hope this is not an example of nationalisation. I am told that "Fido" may be allowed to continue at Heathrow, and, I hope, everywhere else. It is vitally important to pilots and, indeed, to this country if we are going to have people landing on the different aerodromes and not only on Heathrow. Actually the position is that something like £200,000 has already been expended and that only about another £25,000 needs to be expended. It would take about nine months to finish the present developments. The organisation which is working now, and which is to be taken over by the Ministry of Supply, will have nothing more to do with "Fido." The experts who invented all this will be scattered and sent away within a week from today unless the Civil Aviation Department comes to some decision about it. I hope the Lord President will say something about the matter this evening; if not, nothing will be done about "Fido." The Americans, who know something about this matter, are going ahead with it and spending a lot of money on it. We are told there will be no need for "Fido" within two years because we shall have Radar instead. But we have not yet got Radar. What are we going to do during those two years? There is no reason why "Fido" should not be produced at considerably less expense.

Hon. Members may think this is probably only a detail and ought not to be dealt with in a Debate which has covered every country and every area. On the contrary, if we are to have aircaft landing people in this country who are keen to come here and there is to be a proper development of the civil aviation industry we have to have confidence. The pilots themselves have to have confidence. For the next two or three years we shall only get that confidence through "Fido" and there is still every chance for its development. The United States, as I have said, are spending a lot of money to improve it in their own country, but we are not going to do so, or, at any rate, were not up to last week. If the Parliamentary Secretary or the Lord President is going to tell us we are to go on with it, will he also tell us that we are not going to disperse the experts who have dealt with this matter, and thereby give general confidence to the country as a whole? It is not a question of a vast sum of money being spent; it is nothing like the amount mentioned by the B.B.C. Can the proper figures be given tonight? From the point of view of the pilots it would be of importance if some definite statement could be made by the Government. Then there would be some chance that people connected with the Air Force who are not worried from the Party standpoint at all would feel that the Government are paying attention to such practical things as safety as well as to theories such as nationalisation.

9.4 p.m.

The subject we have been discussing today is of the most vital importance, not only to this country but also to the Empire and Commonwealth. To no other nation in the world is this rapid means of communication so absolutely essential. The Parliamentary Secretary in opening this Debate made reference to the second paragraph of the White Paper, which mentions the desirability of our plan being capable of being fitted into any future scheme of international organisation. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) devoted the greater part of his speech to the need for setting up a single international owning and operating body. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. C. Shaw-cross) and the hon. Member for Acock's Green (Mr. Usborne) also spoke on that subject, but, in view of the unwillingness of other nations to enter into such a scheme as is fully set forth in the first paragraph of the White Paper, it seems to me to be a pure waste of time to carry on flogging a dead horse. Much better would it be for us to devote our time and energies to making our own air service efficient—as efficient as that of the Americans. It is no good, I suggest, crying for the moon. Let us get on with the task which immediately confronts us. I am certain the House listened with the greatest satisfaction to the statement made by the Parlia- mentary Secretary with regard to the agreements which have been reached with the Dominions, and I hope he will soon be able to report to us that satisfactory agreements have also been reached with the Americans at Bermuda.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) referred to the fact that the greatness of our country had been built up under a system of free enterprise, and that, in particular, free enterprise had given to us that priceless asset, the Merchant Navy, which in a large measure was responsible for the coming into being of our Commonwealth, and for the dissemination of British ideals and the introduction of British trade to every quarter in the world. He said we who sit on these Benches believe that through free enterprise civil aviation can best be put upon its feet, and that seems to me to be entirely logical, for we have seen the prosperity of our country grow from generation to generation under free enterprise, and in our lifetime we have also witnessed the inability of State owned shipping in other countries to stand up against the competition of free enterprise shipping. We who sit on this side of the House still believe that the experience of the past is a guide to the future. Therefore, we doubt the ability of civil aviation carried on as a State monopoly to stand up against the competition of free enterprise aviation of other countries. The hon. Member for Widnes seems to believe—whether from experience or not I do not know—that civil aviation in America is not efficient. Having had a very considerable experience of it, all I can say is that I shall be satisfied indeed when our civil aviation has the same efficiency.

Reference has been made to the differences between the Swinton scheme and the Government scheme as laid down in the White Paper I was somewhat surprised when the Noble Lady the hon. Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd-George) said, as I understood her to say, that she could not see any difference between the two, and my surprise was increased because I thought my right hon. Friend had made the difference quite apparent. I would like to stress what, to my mind, are the essential differences between the two. The Government's White Paper points to the need for flexibility, the need to encourage different methods of approach to the techniques of air line operation, and the creation of a pool of knowledge. With that every Member of this House will agree. But it was for that very reason that the Swinton plan provided three independent corporations composed of varying interests, drawing their capital from various sources and with members appointed by various interested parties.

These boards, I suggest, have some opportunity of exercising independence and of showing initiative. I would ask what scope for independence and initiative is left to the boards set up under the Government scheme. They will work entirely with Government capital, and accordingly every one of their requirements will be closely scrutinised by the Treasury. They are all appointed by the Government without, so far as we are at present informed, any security of tenure. What independent action can be expected from boards constituted in that way, controlled not only by the Minister but also by the Treasury? I suggest these boards will do exactly what the Minister tells them. They will do nothing without his approval—and why should they? There is no reason whatsoever why they should act otherwise, why they should be bold, why they should take risks or show any initiative whatsoever.

There is another difference to which I would refer, namely, the use to be made of those who are experienced in airline operations, in surface transport and in the needs of users in general. Under the Swinton scheme persons with that experience were to be partners in the venture, sharing the risks and the rewards. In supplying their knowledge and putting their experience at the disposal of the Corporation in which they had a stake they were, at the same time, helping their own industry. Why now, when there is no hope of helping their own industry, when there is no hope of any reward whatsoever, should they be expected to place their knowledge and experience at the disposal of corporations which will be in direct competition with their own industry? The fact is that under the Government proposals shipping, for example, will be called upon to face the subsidised competition of the Government instead of being taken into the new industry on terms of co-partnership. I feel that the great experience which might have been gained from shipping interests is going to be lost to civil aviation. Because I point out these difficulties I hope the House will not assume that we on this side had any very great love or affection for the coalition scheme. We accepted it as a compromise, as we had to accept so many things under the Coalition Government. While many of us could not wholeheartedly approve the scheme it at least had this merit in it: it would have enabled the country to gain experience as to the relative efficiency between a corporation in which the State was the predominant partner and one in which free enterprise occupied that position. That is something which will be denied us under the Government proposals.

On reading the White Paper, I wonder why it is the Government state so emphatically that under national ownership and control the public will be offered the best guarantee for disinterested expansion of the air services with economy and efficiency. When the right hon. Gentleman comes to reply I would like to know first of all exactly what is meant by" disinterested expansion" and how it will affect economy and efficiency. If, as I suspect, these words are intended to convey to the taxpayers of this country that under national ownership their air services will be conducted more efficiently and more economically than under any other system, I would ask for proof of that statement and challenge the right hon. Gentleman to name any State-controlled industry carried on in any country in the world which has been able to stand without subsidy against the competition of free enterprise. I make this further suggestion, that if the statements which appear in paragraph 6 of the White Paper had appeared in the prospectus of any public company they would have been considered as fraudulent and would have carried with them all the penalties under the Companies Acts.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us a further explanation. If public ownership is, in the opinion of the Government, the best guarantee of economy and efficiency, why then is it necessary to provide an incentive to economy? Surely the Government cannot have much faith in their guarantee it they feel that they must offer the kind of inducement laid down in paragraph 18 of the Paper. And what an incentive that is, consisting of a corporation being allowed

The right hon. Gentleman who I understand is going to reply has recently returned from a visit to Canada and the United States, and during that visit, according to his own pronouncements as stated in the Press, he has learned a number of things of which he was previously unaware. I do hope that during his visit he had the time and opportunity to take some note of civil aviation in the United States [An HON. MEMBER:" In Canada too."] And in Canada, run by private enterprise in both countries, with certain exceptions in Canada. Those will be our principal competitors on the world's air routes Having perhaps seen the efficiency of American aviation, is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure in his own mind that the Government's scheme will be able to compete with it on equal terms? If so, would he be good enough to tell the House the reason which induced him to hold that opinion?

If, on the other hand, he is in any doubt whatsoever—and no one on this side of the House would blame him if he were—would it not be advisable to leave the door ajar? Would it not be advisable, and in the national interest, to try out some alternative scheme? Here I would turn to a matter which was referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech. British South American Airways, with their very wide connections, their great organisation and the great goodwill that they have built up over many years in South America, have stated their confidence in being able to operate the United Kingdom-South American route with success. More than that, they have expressed their willingness to risk their own capital in operating that route without subsidies. Would it not be prudent, would it not be in the national interest, to accept that opportunity to try out the merits of the two systems, before we commit ourselves, perhaps irretrievably, to this untried system which the Government propose? I do suggest that, if the Government have really the interests of the country at heart, that trial should be made, particularly when there is so very much at stake. The hon. Member for Nuneaton tried to create some great mystery about this particular air line. He talked of the increase of capital. But, surely, if he would only think for one moment, this company was floated during the war, when they could not possibly proceed to any very great length with their developments. They increased their capital immediately the war ended because then they believed, and had the right to believe, that they would be allowed immediately to put the service which they had planned into operation. I cannot see myself that there is any mystery about the matter at all.

In the White Paper the Government press the need for flexibility in operation, unfortunately without providing for that flexibility. But flexibility is also necessary in regard to the design, manufacture and maintenance of aircraft; and to obtain that flexibility the corporations ought to be free to deal directly with the designers and the manufacturers. No shipowner, and for this we should be thankful, is required to go to the Admiralty with his ship designs, or in regard to the maintenance of his ships. Why, then, should operators of aircraft have an intermediary in the Ministry of Supply and Aircraft Production placed between them and their designers and manufacturers? I have always regarded the Admiralty as being, perhaps, the most efficient of the Service Departments, but how often and how woefully has it fallen behind shipbuilders who specialise in naval construction in regard to design, and in regard to equipment and in regard to construction itself? Surely, hon. Members do recognise that Government Departments tend towards standardisation; and that is something which must be avoided at all costs in the present stage of development of the aircraft industry. If we are to get the aircraft that are most suitable for the various services, these operators and manufacturers must be put into direct touch with one another. They must work together continuously on their present and their future requirements.

Other Members have referred to the need of more adequate information than that which is given in the White Paper in regard to the machinery which is to be set up to safeguard the public, and also to enable the public to make representations in regard to fares and the adequacy of the internal services. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some further information on that tonight. At the same time I would ask him why that should only be in relation to internal services. Surely, the public require the same machinery when they travel overseas. I would also ask for some more information from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the accounts which are going to be kept by these corporations. After all, it is the taxpayers' money that is at stake, and this House is the guardian of the public purse and it has the right to have these accounts laid before it. We have got the right to know in detail the results of their annual trading, and we should not be satisfied with less information than is required in the annual accounts of public companies which, by Statute, have to be submitted to the shareholders and filed with the registrar.

As a Scotsman, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that you would expect me to leave this subject without making some allusion to Prestwick, which has become the symbol of civil aviation in Scotland, and for whose future there is very great and real concern. In paragraph 21 of the White Paper we are informed that until Heathrow is ready Prestwick and two other airports will be available for trans-oceanic services. We have now been told by the Parliamentary Secretary that Prestwick will be available as an international airport for all time. But even so, I hope that the Government will not think that that is going to satisfy the people of Scotland. [ Laughter. ] Hon. Members laugh, but the people of Scotland desire to share in the development of aviation. They are not content merely to have a port of call in their country. They wish to participate in the industry, and in the manufacture of aircraft, aircraft engines, and the maintenance and repair of aircraft, and I must ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the Government's policy in that connection. We are told in paragraph 22 that our country will be able to play a part in the service and in regard to airports. We want fuller information as to what that means.

Let me assure Members of the Government that Scotland is entirely united in this matter. It was dissatisfied with the part which was assigned to it under the Coalition Government scheme. [HON. MEMBERS:" Hear, hear."] If the right hon. Gentleman will wait a minute perhaps he will not say" Hear, hear" quite so readily. We were almost satisfied, the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to know, with the concessions granted by the National Government. I wish to make it quite clear that I am differentiating between the Coalition Government and the last Government. Scottish Members, irrespective of Party, are wholly united on this issue, and they are determined that their country shall have a fair share in this new industry and service. The House will be interested to know that the people of Scotland are just beginning to perceive what nationalisation may mean to them. They are beginning to perceive that it may involve the direction of Scottish industry and Scottish services being transferred from Scotland to Whitehall. They are independent people, and they do not like it. The Government's action in regard to civil aviation will resolve the issue one way or the other.

I cannot close without making some reference to the meanness—[ Interruption. ] It is perfectly obvious that hon. Members opposite must have had a very enjoyable evening. I cannot close without making some reference to the extraordinary meanness of the Government's proposals in regard to compensation. Private operators have for many years blazed the trail of civil aviation in this country. The experience which they gained at great expense has been given freely to the country. Their machines, pilots and ground staffs were placed immediately at the disposal of the country at the outbreak of war. Now that the time has come when that pioneering work would have borne fruit, the Government propose to take away from them their industry without any just measure of compensation. In that connection I wish to refer to what the Parliamentary Secretary said about this matter. In the White Paper it is stated that His Majesty's Government do not consider that there is any case for payment of compensation for goodwill. To that, the Parliamentary Secretary added "or development." These are two entirely different things. There might be a case for paying no compensation in regard to goodwill, but there can be no case whatever for not paying compensation in regard to the cost of development which has been undertaken in the hope of earning profit later on, and which is now being taken away from them.

I would make this suggestion: If the Government proceed as is suggested in the White Paper they are not setting a very good example to other Governments who might take the same course in acquiring British industries overseas. The Government are setting a precedent for foreign Governments, and foreign Governments will not forget this; they will follow that precedent when they feel inclined to take British interests away. The Government are issuing a warning to our own people not to adventure and not to pioneer, for if the Government happen to take a fancy to the venture which they are running, all the thought, all the work and all the money that has been sunk in the venture will be lost. I do most earnestly trust that the Government will reconsider their attitude in this direction. We are being asked to accept and approve a hitherto untried system—a standardised system for a young and growing industry which will be called upon to face the most severe and the most formidable opposition from the aviation of other countries operated on a system of tried and proved efficiency. The policy of the White Paper we believe to be a rash and dangerous experiment unwarranted in the present circumstances of our country, unsupported by any evidence whatever as to its possible success, dictated not by practical considerations but by political doctrine. That policy we completely reject; for it we accept no shred of responsibility.

9.34 p.m

I am bound to say that there seems to be from time to time a certain keenness and enthusiasm on the Opposition Front Bench to get us into some difficulty or another with foreign countries It is a little curious in the face of the fact that the Conservative Party have always claimed to be a great party of even extreme patriotism. I think that sometimes they have got a very funny way of showing it. It has happened before, and I think that instead of making these mischievous invitations to foreign countries to start trouble because we have a Labour Government and a Socialist policy, they might be better occupied. I have noticed another thing today, and that is that the Conservative Party is manifesting a state of mind of extreme nationalism not in England, but in Scotland. Scottish Conservatives are in an extremely nationalist mood. In fact the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), who is a great Scottish patriot, and who speaks with something of an Irish accent, was distinctly Sinn Fein earlier today.

The hon. and gallant Member preached economic doctrines of an extreme and non-sustainable character. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) did not go quite so far as to be Sinn Fein, but he went a good way. I began to wonder what all this was about because, being politically innocent, I had completely forgotten that there were two by-elections coming on in Scotland. That just shows how little interest I take in party strategy and tactics. I had also forgotten that tomorrow was 25th January, when the anniversary of my own favourite poet, Robert Burns, will be celebrated. Tomorrow will be Burns' Nicht and I think it is a pity that it is not Burns' Nicht tonight, because the speeches might have been made with proper order. However, this Government, from my actual experience of other Governments, and my impression of Governments of. which I have not been a member, have taken a more direct, intelligent and constructive interest in the welfare of Scotland than any previous Administration. We recognise fully the economic problems which Scotland in this century has come up against, and we are anxious to play our part in easing them and solving them as best can be done. In fact, my hon. Friend and my noble Friend the Minister have not been in way inconsiderate in regard to the claim on behalf of the great Scottish airport, and to the facilities which will be given in relation to Scottish needs. Certainly, the Ministry of Aircraft Production will not forget Scotland in connection with the aircraft industry. All these things we will do, because Ministers are directed to take Scotland into account. [An HON. MEMBER:"And Wales."] Yes, and Wales, and also the development areas.

Having said that with all sincerity and earnestness, I beg Members from Scotland not to encourage the spread of sheer economic nonsense which arises from unbalanced and unreal extreme nationalism. We have seen the curse of extreme nationalism on the Continent of Europe, which led up to the last war. So, Members from Scotland, by-elections or not, would do better not to do it. The world has suffered too much from this kind of idiocy for a long time. What with the extreme nationalism in that quarter and the very vigorous internationalism of some of my hon. Friends on this side, I have to steer a careful course in answering this Debate. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok has said that free enterprise gave us our great Merchant Navy, That is what he claims. Well, I think there is a great deal of truth in that. I always give free enterprise credit where it is due and I think it is entitled to credit in relation to the development of the British Merchant Marine. Let it have the credit. Free enterprise, however, also gave us watered stock on our railways. It gave us duplication and waste in our railway systems, from which we have been suffering a good deal since. Therefore, the House will realise that I am being perfectly impartial when I cede the hon. Gentleman his point about the Merchant Marine. Yes, I give him his case about this, up to a point. But will hon. Gentlemen opposite be equally impartial and say there have been great disadvantages under private enterprise in many directions?

The hon. Gentleman also says that the White Paper claims flexibility and that he denies that it has in this field. Why cannot these three corporations show a spirit of emulation, a true competitive spirit in the public service? He says there was flexibility in the Swinton scheme, that there would have been great enterprise about it. I do not know what the Opposition want when they talk of enterprise. They argue in one breath, "Here is a great new industry which should be run for airmen, by airmen, in a great spirit of enterprise, of perfectly free enterprise." In the next breath they complain, "Why do you not hang this on to the dear old shipping industry, which understands a lot about ships and, therefore, should understand a lot about aviation?"—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In yet a further breath they say," Why not tie it to the railways?" What do they want? First of all, to treat it as a new, independent, competitive industry and next to tie it to industries which are very old. I am quite willing to try to meet them, but, honestly, I cannot. It is said that Lord Swinton's scheme had flexibility and adaptability, that he had three independent entities and it was a great, balanced scheme deliberately calculated to produce a spirit of enterprise; that it was a pattern carefully worked out, that it was almost scientific—to use a favourite word.

I was in the Coalition Government, as were others, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), and I know. I will tell the House what exactly was the basis of the Swinton scheme.—[ Interruption. ]—I am only telling the House the doctrine. The Coalition Government was a Government with Conservatives in the majority, and with Socialists and Liberals. We all did a jolly good job.—[ Interruption ]—Well, we did, did we not? In remaining silent my hon. Friends were maintaining a judicial poise and did not quite get my point. Whenever we came to fundamental economic questions—I am not complaining, I have said it before—it was inevitably very difficult to agree. That was why the former Prime Minister decided to have an election, and that was the real issue of this economic argument. That is why we won. So here we were, tugging one way for public ownership all over the place, with Conservative Ministers tugging the other way, quite naturally and quite as sincerely, for private ownership, and a Liberal Minister tugging somewhere. Let me say that Lord Swinton, who was a rising and adaptable politician, did his best to meet every point of view. Now this argument about railway experience and shipping experience is not a new story, it is an old one. Lord Swinton did not sit down to produce a scientific integrated mosaic. He said, "How can I get"—[An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"]—I do not know that he said this, but I can guess that he said it.

I guess that he said, "What can I do to get some scheme through this Cabinet of conflicting points of view?" He said, "I will have three corporations," and he had three, if I remember rightly. He had one with substantially, if not predominantly, a railway interest. He said to himself, "That will square the railway interests." He had another with a very strong shipping flavour about it, and he said, "That will square the shipping people, the Conservative believers in private enterprise." It was real political genius. It satisfied both the railway Conservatives and the shipping Conservatives. Finally, he produced a public-ownership corporation, the B.O.A.C., and he said, "That is for the Socialists." The Socialist one was not quite perfect; its imperfection was a concession to the not quite complete Socialism of the Liberals. I admit that this is all unprovable, and that I could not stand up to cross-examination about it, but, as sure as I am standing here, I am certain that that was the philosophy and the political science behind his scheme.

Therefore, I invite the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok to come off it, when he tries to put upon a very high and dignified philosophic and scientific basis this great Swinton. plan. That was the Swinton plan, one for the railways, one for shipping and one for the Socialists. This is a plan, this one of ours; this is a scheme.—[ Laughter. ]—What is the mat- ter with a scheme? Why are the Conservatives laughing at schemes? They have had lots of schemes in their time. They had one at the last General Election. That is why we won. The White Paper has an ordered point of view. It is a very orderly document, and these are orderly proposals. We believe that they stand up. I am certain that they stand, on a basis of business and economic policy.—[An HON. MEMBER: "They do not fly."]—I have never said that White Papers would fly. I leave that to the Noble Lord opposite. There is an economic belief behind this scheme and a deliberate conception of policy. There is a plan, and we believe that it stands up. Why do we believe this? The right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan)—if I may, I would congratulate him upon an able, clever and witty speech and say that all of us very much enjoyed the bright wit of it—said that he and his friends believed that what they wanted in this thing was free enterprise. Somebody else, in the belief in free enterprise, went on to praise the American board that exists over there. That board is a State board, set up for the very purpose of controlling and regulating private enterprise. It is nonsense to say that we can have free enterprise in this industry. We cannot.

The right hon. Member must not misrepresent what I said. I am sure he does not intend to do so. I never said that I was in favour of free enterprise except as regulated and controlled by a board similar to that which we had in Great Britain before the war and on the same lines as the board which operates in America now.

It is not a footnote, as the right hon. Gentleman will see when he reads HANSARD tomorrow. So far from its being a footnote, I am afraid it is only too deeply imbedded in my memory, because I learned it by heart.

I am not surprised. I was never good at learning things by heart, and that is why my speeches are not as good as those of the right hon. Gentleman. [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members should not discourage me from being modest for once. The right hon. Gentleman may have uttered all those other words as well; I confess I do not remember them, but I will look at HANSARD tomorrow. Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman said that he and his friends believed in full scope for free enterprise.

I said that I believed in full scope for private enterprise, and in the next sentence, which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman missed, I said that, of course, it would have to be under the general control of a regulated board similar to that in the United States, for two purposes: for the purpose of seeing that operators were men of reasonable substance, and for the second purpose of preventing too great a degree of competition upon any particular route.

I will try not to provoke the right hon. Gentleman any more, or we may get cross with each other. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have said what he said. I do not want to press the question whether he said it or not; I do not remember it, but it may be I missed it. [ Interruption. ] Interruptions do not worry me, but I was courteous to hon. Members opposite who spoke, and I think they might remember their traditions, and what they are supposed to be, and try to act up to them. I am not surprised at what the right hon. Gentleman said, because I remember his association with a book called "The Next Five Years," which was a very admirable statement of quite a large part of the Socialistic policy of the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman himself is a half-baked Socialist. I think he was uncomfortable tonight, and that was why he enjoyed himself so much—to take his mind off the subject.

But what is he now arguing? He argues that we cannot leave this great industry to the full scope of free enterprise, because if we do there will be accidents in the air, aircraft will fall down. We cannot have people putting aerodromes just where they want; we cannot necessarily have everybody going into the air who wants to do so. We must have either a regulated private monopoly or a regulated and supervised series of private monopolies, or we must say, "This being the case, the State messing about with this industry, regulating it in this way and that way, so that the management cannot have free enterprise—would it not be better to apply the logic of the situation and the State take over the whole thing? "That is the issue that is really between us at the end of the day.

We have come to the conclusion that the State had better set up its own instruments of management in the public interest as a public authority, and then there can be less political, meticulous interference than would be necessary if there were a private monopoly or a series of private monopolies. That is really the issue between us. The Front Bench opposite ought not to use the term "free enterprise" in this connection, because it is a misnomer, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley has demonstrated. They should leave that kind of economic anarchistic nonsense to Lord Beaverbrook. He believes in it. I respect Lord Beaverbrook for the extremity and logic of his beliefs. I think they are bad and they are wrong, but he is like a breath of fresh air compared with all the compromise of the Tory Front Bench in this House today.

I have been asked more than once what is disinterested expansion. Disinterested expansion means expansion in the public service and without any vested or private interest in the matter. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down wanted to know whether I had noticed the aircraft in the United States and in Canada. I have travelled in both of them. He is wrong about Canada. By far the great bulk of it there is run by a public authority—by Trans-Canadian Airways, which is associated with the Canadian National Railways. I found some of the Conservatives in Canada—bless their hearts, for they were very good friends of mine and we got on very well together—did not realise the extent of public ownership in their own country, which is a curious thing. Trans-Canadian Airways are very comfortable, very good and very courteous. I have travelled in the United States from one side of it to another—from Los Angeles to New York—and I have found American airways very good. The charming hostesses in both countries are very courteous and considerate. The Canadian company is a tribute to public ownership; the other is a tribute to private enterprise. However, I do not know sufficient about them to form any judgment in detail. I only say this as regards staffs and crews: I believe the British will produce crews and staffs and services second to none in any other country in the world. I think we can do and we must be ready to learn from other countries.

I want to mention one or two points made by hon. Members and then I will come to the right hon. Member for Bromley. We have heard an argument from one of my hon. Friends the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Acock's Green (Mr. Usborne) which suggested that there was fear in their minds. They did not like the thought of people who had been associated with shipping and railways being brought in to aid in the management of these undertakings. I think they had a little suspicion about it that we were borrowing part of the railway and shipping bias and tradition of the Coalition Government. I can assure my hon. Friends that the members of the board selected by the Minister for Civil Aviation will be selected on their merits for business and executive capacity. His judgment may be right or wrong and open to criticism but that is the motive and nothing else.

I think that, just as it is wrong for hon. Gentlemen opposite to think you have got to tie yourself on to the shipping and railway people, so it is wrong on our part to boycott the shipping and railway people simply because they are shipping and railway people. The truth is that we have not yet evolved the number of high powered business executives, administrators and organisers that we shall need in this new industry. That is quite understandable and there is nothing disgraceful about it. We have gallant pilots, and many of those pilots and other people who were in the Royal Air Force will come into this new service. Some of them who have administrative ability and skill, and I hope and believe my Noble Friend will utilise their abilities and competence to the highest possible extent, but it must be recognised that just as the executive and the administrator is often out of it when you want a really dashing job done, so sometimes the dashing pilot may not necessarily be a skilled administrator and organiser. Therefore, let us have the best of both worlds, if we can get it, and use the most appropriate people in the most appropriate way. I assure my hon. Friends that my Noble Friend has no intention, and no wish, merely to use people because of particular economic associations. I am bound to say, however, that I cannot persuade myself that a knowledge of shipping and railway forms of transport ought to be a disqualification from these posts, as long as the person in that high position does not retain an interest which is likely to conflict with his duty to air transport.

The other thing about which some of my hon. Friends were a little anxious was the international aspect. I believe, and the Labour Party believes—I do not expect hon. Members opposite necessarily to agree—that this thing which cuts across frontiers and goes all over the world, and which will increasingly go all over the world and its confines, will be more and more expanded. Of course it is an international service, and of course the rational thing would be not for us to be talking about this, that and the other regional airways; we ought to be talking about world airways. That is what we ought to be doing, if the world would come up to standard and if that could be done. That is the view of Government. That is our instinct. That is our ideal. That is where we want to get, and there is nothing in this particular scheme to prevent its being fitted in as and when we go along. I am for it, and so are the Government, but the fact has to be faced, I am afraid, from soundings which we have taken and from soundings which the Coalition took—it is true there was more than one view and more than one tendency, naturally, in that Government about it—and from soundings which have been confirmed as best he could, by my Noble Friend the Minister of Civil Aviation, the conclusion to which we have come is that although we of the British Labour Party are ready for this great conception, there are not many countries in the world that really are ready for it. That is true not only of foreign countries, it looks as if it is true of two of the Dominions, and it looks as if it is true in the estimation of the Government of India.

May I ask whether my right hon. Friend will take soundings in the near future?

The suggestion was made that we should call a great inter- national conference and float a great scheme before it. There are two objections. One is that on the information we have—and of course we get a great deal—we feel convinced that it would inevitably fail. I say that with no pleasure. The second thing is—

I am sorry, I must go on, I have not much time. The second thing is that if we go that way, and we delay in getting on with our own job of getting our own airways going, we shall lose time that, believe me, we can ill afford to lose. If, on the other hand, we go straight ahead in developing British airways while we are asking all the foreign powers and Dominions to come together to float a great world system, they will really have a strong suspicion that the British are keeping them talking while the British themselves are getting on with the job, and I do not think that would improve the situation.

I do not say these things with any pleasure; they are unwelcome facts from my point of view, from the Government's point of view, and from the point of view of my hon. Friends. I fully recognise that, but that really is the situation as best we can judge it. As time goes on, we can see whether the world becomes wiser. It must not be thought that this division of opinion is between capitalist and Socialist states or governments. Socialist and extreme Left governments, believe me, can have strong shortcomings of a national character as well as capitalist governments. Therefore, it is not simple. If it were merely a political row it would be simpler—and more complicated at the same time, I supposev—but it cuts across boundaries, it cuts across parties. The fact is that we have had this great war largely conducted for the extirpation of extreme nationalism, but then comes the reaction, and nationalism begins to come up again. We have even had it in this House today in a rather extreme and irrational form. It is very sad but mankind will get its second wind in a little while, and then perhaps it will take a more sensible line. If that happens, we will do our best to take advantage of it.

I quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley said that in the young men of the Royal Air Force in the war we have more than an abundance of fine personnel suitable for this service. They proved themselves in combat and I agree with him that they will prove themselves in civil aviation. He asked me why we had rejected the Swinton scheme, and I think I have told him why, namely, that we did not believe that it was in the proper sense a scheme—it was not disgraceful because of that, but it was essentially a political compromise. He said that the President of the Board of Trade and I had said that notwithstanding this Government's nationalisation a good deal of private enterprise would, remain. From his point of view I presume that was uttered as a compliment; it shows we are not the doctrinaires which he subsequently alleged that we were. We are taking the world as it is and moving along in a realistic spirit. He seemed to think that the appointments were going to be made political appointments by a political Minister. I can assure him, as has been done before, that we shall to the best of our ability make those appointments of those most competent for them.

—and a good many of them from private enterprise. I do not want in socialisation only to socialise physical assets, I want to socialise the best industrial brains. It is vital that we have to socialise the hearts and minds of people in the country as well as their labour and it was proved recently when we appointed to one of these positions a noble Lord who used to sit in this House. We intend to make the appointments on the grounds of competence and ability. We do not mind where the man comes from as long as he has the necessary competence for the position and as long as he is a believer in the policy we are pursuing in this field. We shall not worry too much about his past associations necessarily, except in crime and things like that, and we shall not worry over much as to his economic beliefs in other directions. We want competent people who will believe in the undertaking that they will be called upon to manage, and outside these desiderata we shall be tolerance itself.

The hon. Gentleman has asked whether the charter and taxi people would have some organisation to protect them against the competition of the corporation. It will be the policy that the corporation will not go in for mere cut-throat destructive competition of an unfair character with the private taxi and charter people. But we must be free to compete and it really does not come fitly from those who believe in private enterprise that they should want some body set up to protect private enterprise against the competition of a public corporation. Why not? If they believe that the public corporation will be inefficient and incompetent, I should have thought that they would have nothing to be afraid of.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say how they can compete if the public undertaking is to be subsidised?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is a little precipitate. As a matter of fact, there has been subsidising of these undertakings all the way along by Governments which he has supported; there is nothing new about it. I do not particularly want the subsidy. As soon as we can get rid of it, we will do so. I agree that that will be a fair factor to take into account in any rates and fares as we are going along. We have no ambition merely to engage in cut-throat competition. There is a limited field in which private enterprise can quite legitimately play a part, but it is strange that our public corporation should be denounced as incompetent and then it should be argued that it should not compete against private enterprise. From that argument we ought logically to have some protection of the public corporation against the dangerous competition of efficient private enterprise. They can have it which way they like.

Some comment has been made about the manufacture of aircraft. We believe that in this field of the manufacture of aircraft for this series of public corporations, whilst recognising the argument that they should be able to place the orders direct with the individual manufacturer, it is in the interests of the country that the orders should go through the Ministry of Aircraft Production. First of all, in any case, we must have State organisation of research for all the business of Radar and all sorts of other things which are vital to the success of the British aircraft industry. If we left that entirely to the individual firms it would not be done as well, though they will no doubt conduct their own research. Secondly, we have to organise this aircraft industry. We want to get a good level of employment in it as the years go on. We want to be free to balance between civil and military orders as between the firms as we go along. Finally, we have to think of this industry, while we have to think of these things, unfortunately, in respect of war potential. Consequently it is felt that it is better that the orders should go through the Ministry of Aircraft Production.

I would like to add that it is profoundly important, and I feel sure that my Noble Friend the Minister will agree with me, that the voices and opinions of the men who are running these air transport undertakings, including the fellows who are piloting them—the voice of experience—should have a mode of expression so that their opinions can be taken into account, and that they should not be left out in the cold, and the Ministry of Civil Aviation merely order what they think is good for them. I think that is reasonable and I think it is important that these people, including these new corporations, should have an adequate voice as to the various things that are needed in relation to aircraft production.

I would say just a word about the order we are giving to the United States. I gather that it meets generally with the approval of the House in the circumstances with which we are faced. It is a choice between being out of the air in the Atlantic for some time, or giving this order for this particular quantity and then going back to British production. I assure the House that it is a special isolated case and we shall then go back to British purchase. It is important and inevitable that we should do this now in order to keep ourselves in the air. Finally, may I say that we have had a good and useful Debate and discussion? I am sorry I have not been able to refer to all the individual speakers. I would particularly refer to the maiden speakers, whom we have been charmed to hear, and I would like to thank the House generally for the good reception it has given to the White Paper which is now before us.

Question put:

"That this House approves the proposals of His Majesty's Government for Civil Aviation contained in Command Paper No. 6712."

The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 145.

Division No. 63.]

AYES.

[10.15 p.m.

Adams, Capt. Richard (Balham)

Gaitskell, H. T. N.

Morley, R.

Adamson, Mrs. J. L.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Allen, A C. (Bosworth)

Gibson, C. W.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Moyle, A.

Alpass, J. H.

Goodrich, H. E.

Murray, J. D.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Nally, W.

Attewell, H. C.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Naylor, T. E.

Austin, H. L.

Grenfell, D. R.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Ayles, W. H.

Grey, C. F.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Grierson, E.

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Bacon, Miss A.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Baird, Capt. J.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

O'Brien, T.

Balfour, A.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Oldfield, W. H.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Gunter, Capt. R. J.

Oliver, G. H.

Barton, C.

Guy, W. H.

Orbach, M.

Bechervaise, A. E

Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

Paget, R. T.

Belcher, J. W.

Hale, L.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Bellenger, F. J.

Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Benson, G.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Pargiter, G. A.

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Hardy, E. A.

Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

Bing, Capt. G. H. C.

Haworth, J

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Binns, J.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Blackburn, Capt. A. R.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Perrins, W.

Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield).

Blyton, W. R.

Hicks, G.

Popplewell, E.

Boardman, H.

Hobson, C. R.

Pritt, D. N.

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Holman, P.

Proctor, W. T.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Horabin, T. L.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

House, G.

Randall, H. E.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing W.)

Ranger, J.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

Reeves, J.

Brown, George (Belper)

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Rhodes, H.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Robens, A.

Burden, T. W.

Isaaes, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Roberts, Sq.-Ldr. Emrys (M'rion'th)

Burke, W. A.

Irving, W. J.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Janner, B.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)

Rogers, G. H. R.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

Royle, C.

Chamberlain, R. A.

John, W.

Sargwood, R.

Champion, A. J.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Scott-Elliot, W.

Chater, D.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.

Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

Keenan, W.

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Clitherow, Dr. R.

Key, C. W.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Cluse, W. S.

King, E. M.

Shurmer, P.

Cobb, F. A.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Cocks, F. S.

Kinley, J.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Collick, P.

Lavers, S.

Simmons, C. J.

Collins, V. J.

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Skeffington, A. M.

Colman, Miss G M.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Skinnard, F. W.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Leonard, W.

Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

Cove, W. G.

Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Dainies, P.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Lindgren, G. S.

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Lipson, D. L.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Lyne, A. W.

Solley, L. J.

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

McAdam, W.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

McEntee, V. La T.

Sparks, J. A.

Deer, G

McGhee, H. G.

Stamford, W.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Mack, J. D.

Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham. E.)

Diamond, J.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Stokes, R. R.

Dobbie, W.

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

Strauss, G. R.

Donovan, T.

McLeavy, F.

Stress, Dr. B.

Douglas, F. C. R.

MacMillan, M. K.

Stubbs, A. E.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Macpherson, T. (Romford).

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Dumpleton, C. W.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Swingler, Capt. S.

Durbin, E. F. M.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Symonds, Maj. A. L.

Dye, S.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Mayhew, C. P.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Medland, H. M.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Ewart, R.

Messer, F.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Fairhurst, F.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Mikardo, Ian

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Follick, M.

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Thorneycroft, H. (Manchester, C.)

Foot, M. M.

Monslow, W.

Thurtle, E.

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Montague, F.

Tiffany, S.

Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Titterington, M. F.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Williamson, T.

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

Willis, E.

Usborne, Henry

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Wilson, J. H.

Viant, S. P.

Wigg, Col. G. E.

Wise, Major F. J

Walkden, E.

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

Woodburn, A.

Walker, G. H.

Wilkes, Maj. L.

Woods, G. S.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Wilkins, W. A.

Yates, V. F.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Zilliacus, K.

Warbey, W. N.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Watkins, T. E.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Pearson.

Weitzman, D.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G

Head, Brig. A. H.

Pitman, I. J.

Aitken, Hon. M.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Prescott, W. R. S.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Hope, Lord J.

Prior-Palmer, Brig O.

Bennett, Sir P.

Hulbert, N. J.

Raikes, H. V.

Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

Jarvis, Sir J.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Boothby, R.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Bowen, R.

Jennings, R.

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Bower, N.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Renton, D.

Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

Lambert, G.

Robinson, Wing-Cmdr. Roland

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Ropner, Col. L.

Bullock, Capt. M

Langford-Holt, J.

Sanderson, Sir F.

Butcher, H. W.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Shephard, S. (Newark)

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ff'n W'ld'n)

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow)

Carson, E.

Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.

Linstead, H. N.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Channon, H.

Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirral)

Smithers, Sir W.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Spearman, A. C M.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Lyttelton. Rt. Hon. O.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

Davidson, Viscountess

McCallum, Maj. D.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.

Digby, Maj. S. W

Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Studholme, H. G

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

Sutcliffe, H.

Dower, Lt.-Col. A V. G. (Penrith)

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

MacLeod, Capt. J

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

Drayson, Capt. G. B.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold

Teeling, William

Drewe, C.

Macpherson, Maj N. (Dumfries)

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Eccles, D. M

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A F

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Touche, G. C.

Erroll, Col. F. J.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T

Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)

Walker-Smith, D.

Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)

Maude, J. C.

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Wheatley, M. J.

Gammans, Capt. L. D

Mellor, Sir J.

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Molson, A. H. E.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Glossop, C. W. H.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Glyn, Sir R.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U

Gridley, Sir A.

Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Grimston, R. V.

Neven-Spence Major Sir B.

Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Nield, B. (Chester)

York, C.

Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'd'bridge)

Osborne, C.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Peto, Brig. C. H M

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Haughton, S. G.

Pickthorn K.

Major Sir A. S. L. Young and Mr. P. Buchan-Hepburn.

Demobilisation and Labour Shortage

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. R. J. Taylor. ]

10.26 p.m.

I want to take this opportunity of putting before the Minister of Labour, in all sincerity, the position to which the policy of the Government regarding the labour shortage and demobilisation is bringing us. It is generally admitted that we have about two years in which to get our wheels turning before the sellers' market will be eaten up by our competitors—America, Russia and other countries. I will give the picture as I see it from the great training centre, what one might call the heartbeat of the heavy industry, namely, Sheffield.

The first point I want to make is that there is a time lag between demobilisation and the time when the man is actually producing goods. He has two months' holiday, and another month in which to get himself back into full production, so that when the Government talk about June, we have to think, in terms of production, of September. The second point is export. I am dismayed to see that our export figures for November, which are the latest I can produce, have gone down by nearly 30 per cent. from £42 millions to £29 millions. That is a very bad picture. I will give a few points of detail. The first is about housing in Sheffield. If we do not count the bottleneck of Whitehall and what I consider to be the inane policy of political spite of the present Minister of Health, there are two main bottlenecks: shortage of labour for making bricks and for laying them. Those two bottlenecks are the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour.

The next point I wish to make is about bedding and household linen. It is time that the housewives of Sheffield got some consideration from the Government in order to replace the bedding and linen worn out after six years of war. We shall not get those goods until the labour is available to produce them. Another point is in connection with cutlery—the great industry on which the export trade of Sheffield mainly depends. I have spoken to both sides of the industry. The employers with their books full of export orders are crying out for labour; the employees wish to improve their accommodation, and that is being held up through lack of labour as well. Since this matter was originally raised the Ministry of Labour officials in Sheffield have helped within a limited capacity. Can there be a block release under Class B. of 100 skilled cutlery workers? If this could be arranged it would be a great help and would enable the cutlery trade to be put on the civilian preference list.

These are the three points which I want to make in detail, and I will not labour them because time is short. It is no good making criticisms unless one gives some form of remedy. I want to give two remedies to the Parliamentary Secretary that I hope he will put to his right hon. Friend the Minister. The first is as to the speeding up of demobilisation. There are two bogies which H.M. Government usually set up when the question of the speeding up of demobilisation is raised. The first is unemployment, and they usually apply it to America. I want to take that point first. At the moment, they are demobilising in America about five times as fast as we are. That means we are demobilising five times slower than she is and the only points which H.M. Government put up are reports of future expectations of American economists. I defy the Government or any hon. Member on the Government side to give the actual facts with regard to the present vastly increased unemployment in America. I am not talking about strikes, the strike position which arises largely from a completely different matter which is the low pegging of wages in America during the war. I wish to quote from a report which appeared in the "Sunday Times" of 20th January, which is a factual report from America in which actual evidence is given. That shows that reconversion has been faster in America, prices much better held, production greater, and unemployment much lower than any economists forecast. These are the facts, and the sooner the Government get away from this bogy and realise what most practical people do, that there is a vast shortage of labour which is crying out to be filled at this moment, the better it will be. The Americans have put over, and are putting over, an extremely good job of work and it does not stand to H.M. Government, who are not doing particularly well, to try to criticise them. The second remedy I want to suggest is in regard to the question of the penalising of men coming out under Class B. The men who come out under Class B are coming out for our benefit as well as their own. They are coming out to help us and the country get on its feet again, in the mines, in the fields, wherever it may be. Why should they be penalised by loss of pay, by being directed to employment, and so on? Surely it is a reasonable thing to ask that these men should come out on the same basis, as far as money is concerned, as those coming out under Class A. I do not think there will be anybody in the Services, or outside, who will think that is an unfair thing.

As regards the speeding up of demobilisation we must, I admit, keep up our commitments in Germany and outside as far as the Control Commission is concerned. That is vital. The next thing is for the Government to make up their minds what their regular standing Army is to be. When they have made up their minds, they can say "So much do we require for our commitments and above them we can let the remainder go." I want to suggest a target on this. It is that, after the Regular Army figures have been made up by June, let us say, those who have had two years' service or more shall come out. There is the target: two years' service and out by June. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that I am putting what I consider to be sincere remedies for the most drastic man position which we have got ourselves into. We want houses, we want goods and we want to get our production going. We have got the stuff and the men are in the Forces. I ask that he will take these considerations most seriously.

10.34 p.m.

I find that I have nine minutes in which to answer, and I am sure the House will appreciate that I am in some difficulty in replying to all the points that have been put. In the first place, a general plan has been made about the rate of demobilisation. A debate took place in this House on that question, and the House approved the present plan. That plan has not only been kept to, despite the difficulties of transport, but it has been exceeded. This is the first point I want to make. The undertaking given to this House, and approved by this House, has been carried out, and had been exceeded by 118,000 men by the end of December of last year. [An HON. MEMBER: "Set up a working party."] I shall come to the working parties in a moment. Between June and November we increased the number of workers on home and export work by 1,377,000. That was in five months. Instead of the number engaged on export work having decreased, the number nearly doubled. I am talking about the number of workers engaged on export work. Their number was nearly doubled in that five months.

But we are exporting what the workers produce. These are the workers engaged in export, and, very largely, completely under the control of unfettered private enterprise. If the result is unsatisfactory, we know where we can lay the blame. Another point I have to make—and I am sorry that I have to proceed through this so rapidly, because the case put up by the hon. Member requires an answer—is that at present the effect of the full demobilisation plan has not been felt, because the men come on to their 56 days' paid leave. We have, it is estimated, more than half a million men still enjoying their paid leave. They are free men, and this House agreed that they should be free men for that period when there was a Tory majority in this House. These men, having borne so many burdens and sacrifices, are entitled to come back and enjoy their paid leave. So what is the point? Complaint was made that these men were not being driven back to work. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members opposite should listen to the interjections from their own side. The suggestion was that we should give them green cards. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] An hon. Member opposite has already suggested that in an interjection. So far as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is concerned, he is not worried about the bogy of unemployment—not worried at all. We can do with all the men we can get as quickly as we can get them. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the unemployed now."] The hon. and gallant Member is entitled to have an answer without all these interjections being thrown in. Now I come back to the point. [ Interruption. ] I wish the Noble Lord would exercise a little more patience.

I put this challenge to the Parliamentary Secretary—instead of making cheap party gibes, to answer the case which has been put to him.

The Noble Lord's long practice of that sort of thing in this House is well known to the Members of this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Answer the point."] The Minister of Labour requires the quickest rate and volume of demobilisation possible, having regard to its orderly and equitable nature. The Government must also have regard to the fact that we must preserve the peace that so many men gave their lives to win. We do not want to cast away victory by higgledy-piggledy demobilisation and run away from the battlefield we have already conquered. We have been asked whether in the cutlery industry 100 skilled men can come back to relieve the shortage. The answer is in the affirmative and authority has already been given for that. The next point was whether the cutlery industry should be placed upon the preference list. It is already on the list for preference.

I must go on, for I have very little time and I have a rather important announcement to make which I think will meet with approval from all sides of the House. On 16th November my right hon. Friend the Minister circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing in detail the Class B releases which had been authorized up to that time. They came to over 180,000. I am now authorized to say that the number sanctioned has been increased to 300,000, and the Minister proposes to put the detailed statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have a very long list here which will appear in the Report. There is provision for the cutlery industry within an authorized miscellaneous figure of over 6,000.

I come to the next point, in which complaint was made about the industry itself. This is mainly situated in Sheffield. It consists of 138 firms with a large number of middlemen and little masters. There are 313 factories. It must be recognized on all sides that "Made in Sheffield" has been the hall-mark of the highest form of production. This industry during the war lost 4,000 workers, and the vacancies now registered in the industry come to 2,128, of which 1,196 are for women. Why in this great changeover which is taking place from the well-factoried modern munitions production is this industry failing to attract the women workers back? [HON. MEMBER: "Well, why?"] I propose to answer my own question, because in this connection we see the consequences of general and unfettered private enterprise. Let me quote from the inspector's report for the period when the hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House were in the majority. Thirty-six factories were good, 233 required considerable internal alteration and adaptation, and 44 should be wholly condemned. That state of affairs has been going on for the last 20 years. Only 30 per cent. of the workers in this in- dustry have decent factory conditions. For the remainder the conditions fall very short of what is desirable, and 10 per cent. of them are working in slum property. We cannot wait for the whip of poverty to drive people back into this industry; it must play its part in attracting labour to it. There are good employers in it, men with good factories and good conditions, but their work has been undermined by the attitude of slum-minded employers, and they themselves have joined in condemning what I have mentioned in regard to the general conditions in this industry. The President of the Board of Trade has got the working party going. [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members opposite gibe at the term "working party," but in this industry it is a demolition party that is required to destroy some of its factories. I hope that what I have said meets fully the points made by the hon. Member and I hope that what the Minister has done will go some way to helping the industry to get on its feet.

It being a Quarter to Eleven o'Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order made upon 16th August.

Following is the statement referred to by the Minister:

The numbers shown below are those up to which releases may be made for the industries and services concerned, provided there are sufficient men and women with the necessary qualifications available for release in Class B; they do not necessarily represent the numbers which the Service Departments have been asked to release.

MEN

Industries

Building and Civil Engineering

120,000

Industries ancillary to building and civil engineering

21,000

Agriculture

18,000

Underground coalmining

15,000 *

Cotton

including finishing

7,700

Wool

7,000

Food

6,720

Railway services

9,000

Paper, paperboard and paper conversion

3,500

Leather (tanning and currying)

2,500

Tailoring

2,400

Gas

1,750

Draughtsmen

1,550

Iron castings

1,100

Electricity

1,050

Tinplates

1,050

Shipbuilding (Admiralty)

880

Printing

870

Refractories

800

Railway wagons

670

Pottery

600

Steel sheets

500

Deep-sea fishing

500

Fertilisers

500

220,640

* At 31st December, 1945, just over 18,000 names had been submitted to the Service Departments. At 31st December, 1945, just over 18,000 names had been submitted to the Service Departments.

Essential Services

School teachers

13,200

Firemen—regular recruits 9,000

9,600

Police recruits

5,000

Students (including theological students)

4,500

Candidates for Colonial and similar services

2,180

G.P.O. Engineering Department

2,000

Government Service

2,000

Candidates for Palestine Police Force

2,000

Night telephonists, telegraphists, etc. (G.P.O.)

1,200

University teachers

500

42,180

Miscellaneous

6,412

Total

269,232

WOMEN

Industries

Wool textile

2,300

Laundries

2,000

Clothing

2,000

Cotton

1,000

Boots and shoes

600

Cigarettes

500

Textile finishing

450

Flax

250

Jute

250

9,350

Essential Services

Nursing recruits

2,000

Hospital cooks

1,000

Telegraph and telephone

500

3,500

Miscellaneous

600

Total

13,450

Individual Specialists

(Men and Women)

17,500

Cumulative Total

300,182

Note. £In addition to the above, as many members of the Regular Police Forces as can be spared from their military duties are being released in Class B. On 31st December, 1945, the number reported as having been so released was 6,772.